Based on what data?

I know several doctors and several junior doctors, none of whom see the NHS as sustainable in the long run. I still think it's better than the US system, but I will say it will probably collapse eventually.

To answer your original question, we do not go down that path because it is immoral to ask one man to exist for the purpose of being looted from by the others, which is essentially what socialized medicine comes down to. The practicality aside, the purpose of the government is not to abuse its legal monopoly on the use of force?

I don't know why I put a question mark...

Yeah, i reside in the Netherlands. Insurance is privatised but compulsory and regardless of your incomes. I pay 100 euros a month living on a study fund of 450. This outrageous amount taken indeed feels as a 'loot'. "Ho but you are covered against health problems a least!" you shall respond. But lo! the 700 first Euros spent a year in health, i have to pay of my own pocket. So why am i insured?
Health sector is a huge market with a huge margin and suddenly insurance company managers run away from bankrupt companies with banknotes flying off their pockets in their trails....
If i were president of the world i would say: heal people and share the bill, no more, no less.

@rlumley:
Does your argument imply that you are an anarchist, thus in favor of no unified form of government whose purpose is to supply the community with basic necessities for life and economic prosperity?

Or, rather as I suspect, are you suggesting that taxation for health services are a unique form of 'abuse' which is distinct from the myriad other tax-fueled services supplied by the U.S. gov?

The US pretty much already has socialized medicine: it's called Medicare and Medicaid (and all the state-run equivalents). Nearly 100 million Americans or on one of these two programs. That's about 1 in every 3 people. We also spend nearly 40% of all health care dollars on these two programs. And it's only going to increase as the US population ages and lives longer. Add to this the millions without any insurance at all (about 40 million), and when they get sick they go to the county hospital but can't pay for it, and those costs then get allocated to those who can pay.

Sadly, there will never be the political will to do away with these programs until they literally bankrupt the country. So, I wonder whether we should all jump on the single-payer system, or if we instead should try to reform or dismantle it.

Socialized health care is one of the sticky points in my worldview that I don't think I've quite resolved. I'm typically quite capitalist and against socialization of industries, but maybe it's an artifact of living and growing up in Canada, but I feel like socialized health care is a good thing. I'm not a stalwart libertarian in the sense that I feel taxation is morally wrong. I feel that government action has the potential to do good, but that it's so difficult to design good policy that it usually does more harm than good. I recognize the government's need to intercede in industries where there are externalities, but I think that two many are socialized.

Health care, I believe is an industry in which externalities exist and so should be socialized to some extent. My reasoning follows on the following lines. If health care were privatized and serviced by profit-oriented firms, there would be an incentive for treatment over cure over prevention, in order of profitability. Firms in health care make money off a sick population, not off a healthy one. If health care is socialized, while the government is usually not nearly as effective cost-wise as firms, an exception could exist here as prevention is cheaper than cures which is cheaper than treatment. A government makes money off a healthy population which is capable of working and being taxed, and not off a sick population. I would attribute the immense cost of American health care because it is much more cure and treatment oriented than prevention-oriented. Cures and treatments are much more expensive and less effective by cost, but also much more profitable than prevention. Governments are more likely to take cheaper, preventative action because it's much more effective for the cost than cures or treatments.

I haven't completely thought this through, but I would leave pharmaceuticals private, and have health care providers socialized.

The american health care system is in trouble - I read an article recently saying those that run american medicare have budgeted it will be bankrupt by 2020 or something - of course this won't be allowed to happen, but changes will come.

I'd say we're pretty much bankrupt now. We simply can't afford nationalized medicine even if it were a good idea.

I just read a fascinating and sobering article that illustrates that the problems in health care cost and quality go far beyond the simple one of who pays... basically: there is developing culture in the medical community (in some organizations and some communities) that treats medicine as a business where doctors see revenue streams to be developed - rather than people to be kept healthy. It's a long article... but well worth it if you have interest in the subject:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

@ Invictus - and for that matter, I don't know if the UK economy is all that much better :)

Invictus, You got to spend money to make money...
If it's a good idea... then it's a good idea. Period. As an analogy, here in California the Governor is proposing cutting, among many other things, state parks (actually closing parks). Thing is, apparently for every $1 spent by the State on running state parks, the state sees $2.35 in revenue. Make sense to cut that program? I don't think so.

If we save money by having national health care (mostly by encouraging preventative care... and by various efficiencies), then spending some upfront to get the system going is a good investment... not to mention that it's the humane thing to do. With the recession in full force, interest rates are low... now is a good time for government to make long-term investments.

"In the US it costs 13% of GDP and out of range of many people."

Ummmm, isn't the Brown admin running out of money? As for your stats, a few numbers do not show the whole picture.

Finally, when was the last time the Brits invented a new procedure or medicine????????????????????

Dexter's right. The government has few qualms about borrowing money anyway. You know those dilapidated stores and factories you sometimes see? You think, wow if only they updated the place they could actually make money, or they should just close that place down because there's no way they make money. It's a cool phenomenon, but the place generates enough revenue that it's not worth closing, but not enough that it's worth updating. Instead, it just deteriorates until it's forced to close, and while it's losing money all the time, it is losing less money than it would have by simply closing it.

I haven't read the entire article that Dexter posted, but I'm currently doing so. If I understand the thesis of the article, it confirms my basic assumption. My Mom is a doctor on a salary, my Father is a dentist working out of a private practice. I'm quite sure that there is much more pressure on my Father to treat patients as sources of revenue, while my Mom is more concerned with simply treating the patient adequately.

Chrisp, I agree with the government actually running the healthcare system, but more and more InsCos are realizing that prevention and wellness care is more cost effective than paying treat or cure the sick. The problem is, these same InsCos are looking for ways to deny as many claims as possible and have found it is cheaper to pay lawyers and fight valid claims than to do what is right and just pay for the claims.

The problem with trusting InsCos to think proactively (i.e. pay for prevention now, save money in the long run) is the same problem with a huge part of financial industries and other big corps in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere). For the people running the company, especially for publically traded companies, the proverbial ounce of prevention doesn't really pay off.

I've heard this argument applied to the failings of U.S. automotive companies, as well as with the major bank failures. In each case, one of the common threads is that these companies are fueled by short term profits and prospects.

I am coming closer to agreeing with this.

Right now, for the average middle-class taxpaying America the system in place is just as bad as single payer, because they pay absurd insurance premiums to cover absurd medical costs (500 dollars to go to the emergency room, 2000 for a simple test, etc.) that are inflated by deadbeats. May as well just make it official, that way people can get more preventative care.

The fact is that full socialized medicine in the US is a foregone conclusion. Decades ago, our society made the decision that health care won't be denied to a sick person just because they can't pay for it. We can talk about the wisdom of that decision, but since then we've expanded health care to millions in this way. The only way to continue to provide health care those who cannot (or, quite often choose not to) afford health insurance is to have the govt. pay for it.

That said, once the govt. socializes medicine, there will be a secondary market for even better care. So, the rich will buy supplemental insurance coverage and go to medical spas (it's already here--"concierge medicine" is the term I've heard) and the rest of society will wait for care just like in the UK and Canada. (This is not to say I don't have to wait 2 months for an MD appt, or a week for an MRI here in the States).

A week for an MRI? Do you know how long you have to wait on the NHS? Medicine in the USA is deluged with good equipment.

As someone who's lived both in the U.S. and Europe I agree with groverloaf; in the end the cost to me wasn't that much different but I had quicker access to the services that I wanted in the U.S.

Here is why. In America, we need insentive. If you have good healthcare, you want better care than someone who doesn't have healthcare at all.

Mr. Pinguin:
"@rlumley:
Does your argument imply that you are an anarchist, thus in favor of no unified form of government whose purpose is to supply the community with basic necessities for life and economic prosperity?"
----------------------
My argument implies that I am an objectivist, who sees the purpose of man as living for himself. To quote Ayn Rand,

"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors - between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it." I am not an anarchist. There are legitimate uses of government. Military, police, and maybe roads too. But almost every government program there is is immoral and evil, because it demands the self-sacrifice of the taxpayers (read: rich) for the good of the poor.

jasoncollins:
"The american health care system is in trouble - I read an article recently saying those that run american medicare have budgeted it will be bankrupt by 2020 or something - of course this won't be allowed to happen, but changes will come."

2020? We're bankrupt now... We have (at last count, I'm sure it's gone up) $65 trillion in unfunded liabilities. That's money that my generation gets to pay! That rounds to about $650,000 per person. There is no way that the economy could sustain anything close to that amount of tax burden. That's why we will simply inflate our way out of the debt (Germany, circa 1920) or simply collapse. My money is on the former, but the latter could happen pretty easily too.

@rlumley - are you seriously saying that taxation is immoral and evil, and those that can afford it should not support their fellow man? That the poor should not be helped, when the biggest barrier to achievement and fulfilling your potential is socio-economic status? That's a pretty unpleasant world view

@rlumley way to not answer the question. Are you against taxes or not?

Why are "Military, police, and maybe roads too" lgegimate uses of government money for which people can be taxed but other uses are not? Why should I have to pay for police, or a military if I'm content to try to simply defend myself? Why should I have to pay for those people who don't want to do the same?

Anyway, moving on...

@Chrispminis - I think the reason you are holding onto socialized healthcare is because it's a good idea, and you're a reasonable person.

In reading your posts lately it does seem you've been moving more and more in a capitalist/libertarian direction (maybe you haven't changed at all, but it feels that way from the discussions I've seen you in lately), and I don't think that's entirely unreasonable, but you seem lately to feel like you need to apologize for any position you have that's not that the free market will take care of everything, and I don't think you should feel that way.

I think the reason you still cling to socialized medicine is that on some level you are really a pragmatist. I've come to realize over the years that I care less and less about ideologies, especially in economics, (such as CAPITALISM SOLVES ALL PROBLEMS! or CAPITALISM IS THE CAUSE OF ALL PROBLEMS!) and far more about results. There are some things that markets are really really good for, and some things that they simply aren't the best tool for (and of course there are many things in between where markets are good within certain bounds, really markets are just a tool, not an end in and of themselves). I've come to the conclusion that health care is simply not something that markets are very good for providing.

The US healthcare system provides really really good care for a few, mediocre care for many, and terrible care for the rest. And of course the terrible care for the rest leads to higher costs for those in the other two tiers. I'm sure Invictus will tell us that he'll never trust government bureaucrats to run healthcare well, but he's obviously never had to try to deal intimately with a healthcare company. Believe me, government bureaucrats couldn't possible do a worse job than the private ones we have now, and they'd have less incentive to do the sorts of terrible things that the ones we deal with now do. I remember hearing someone talking on an episode of Fresh Air about a year or so ago that the administrative costs of the US private healthcare system was something absurd like 30 or 40 percent, partly because the companies have an incentive to spend it on that and not on procedures, and partially because with so many companies you duplicate the bureaucracy over and over again. A single payer system would, at the very least, gain some efficiency by simply not having to duplicate the same bureaucracy over and over again.

@ Pete.

Yes. That's what I'm saying. Taxes are immoral, yet required to fund basic functions of the government. For this purpose, we should use economically constructive forms of taxation (eg. the Death tax) and, if possible, donations, as opposed to economically destructive forms of taxation (ie. the Income tax) to whatever extent possible.

@ DrOct

The governments purpose is also what makes it dangerous. The government holds a legal monopoly on the use of force against legally disarmed victims. The reason that individuals can not simply defend themselves is that it requires force - something only the government should use, and sparingly. The use of force encompasses Military and Police. The reason I add roads is that theoretically, I think that roads should be privatized, but practically speaking, the government does a relatively good job of maintaining them. It's certainly not the largest evil.

Ranking of healtcare:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore

Now, San Marino, Andorra and Malta can be ignored.

Costs:
France: $4,000 per capita
Italy: $2,750 per capita
Singapore: $1,000 per capita.

I think I know which system I support. Lets get out of the false dichotomy between Europe and America.