Posted on 06/14/2019 8:51:09 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Rising support for socialism in the United States comes at a time when politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., promise a great many “free” services, to be provided or guaranteed by the government.
Supporters often point to nations with large social programs, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Scandinavian states, particularly when it comes to health care.
Never mind that these are not true socialist countries, but highly taxed market economies with large welfare states. That aside, they do offer a government-guaranteed health service that many in America wish to emulate.
The problem for their argument is that, despite these extremely generous programs, some of these countries are seeing steady a growth of private health insurance.
“Medicare for All,” the prominent socialized medicine proposal in the United States, is most similar to the Canadian system in which providers bill the regional office administering the program.
In Medicare for All, there would be no cost-sharing schemes and all coverage would be comprehensive, including prescription drugs, dental, vision, and other services deemed necessary by the secretary of health and human services.
The Scandinavian systems are similar to Medicare for All in the respect that they use regional offices to administer reimbursements to providers.
Yet they differ in critical ways: They employ cost-sharing for certain services, they are less comprehensive in their coverage, and they allow for private health insurance plans to complement or supplement the government system to cover out-of-pocket expenses and to circumvent wait times or rationed access to specialists.
These are precisely the things Medicare for All would abolish. It’s intriguing that while socialists in America would rush to nationalize the health care system, Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes are all gradually increasing their use of private health insurance.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...
PING!
Isn’t it interesting that the models for how socialism can supposedly work (Scandinavia) are the whitest places on Earth? Want to see some liberal heads explode? Bring that up.
Self-described socialists don’t seem to know the difference between socialism, infrastructure, and welfare. When you ask them to explain what socialism is, they’ll usually decline, claiming it’s “too complicated”. That’s actually one of the benefits of socialism in their minds: it doesn’t require explanation so it’s meaning can vary wildly.
There are unique features to Norway, Sweden and Finland...which makes the socialism angle/models unworkable. Everyone tends to work, and the population of slackers is minimal. Up until the past decade, there wasn’t a immigration problem existing in the three. If you count the population of all three countries....it’s fairly near 28-million. A fair portion of their population resides in a highly rural situation.
French doctors on strike over reform based on NHS 'free at the point of delivery' model they say will increase red tape
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11310892/French-doctors-strike-in-protest-at-NHS-style-reforms.html
In Norway they have about 5.5 million people.
Norway produces about 2 million barrels of oil a day.
Although I guess the way Norway does it is perhaps better than how the sheiks in Saudi Arabia have gamed it.
Then GO HOME!!
l8r
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lxD-gikpMs
And still their lowest tax rate is 60%! Plus a VAT of 25%!!!
Someone should give this memo to his supporters.
For later.
bump
The most obvious shortcoming of all Western/Northern European socialism is that is based on a negative birthrate; people will pay higher taxes because there are few children, so it is a fleeting phenomenon that appears to resolve all issues - until the population ages and you bring in masses of Third Worlders that aren’t “economically viable”.
Right now the US is facing the same crisis, and is keeping its borders open to prevent a massive “Detroitification” of its worst areas. We are simply injecting warm bodies into the voids filled by dying or fleeing Americans to prop up the nanny-state services economy - but the recipients provide nothing for the services (so young Americans, saddled with the costs, stop breeding).
Correct. Homogeneity of population, high value on vigorous, healthy living, a Work Ethic, frugality, and tight families. Burden on health care system, given a comparatively healthy citizenry and productivity of populace, was quite tolerable, and it worked. All of the variables that made it work are, of course, now being dissolved.
I’m amazed that their people have any money left for themselves.
I did not watch the vid, but the numbers he quoted in his post are obviously wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.