[linuxftw]

Socialized medicine was always going to be unaffordable in the long term. If it wasn't a burden, then the 'cost cutting' measures probably wouldn't have been implemented.

Having the government in charge of something means it's always going to be inefficient.

[WastingMyTime89]

> Socialized medicine was always going to be unaffordable in the long term.

Why? Sorry but that’s horse shit.

There is nothing preventing socialised medicine for working. It costs less per capita nowadays than it did when it was put in place and productivity skyrocketed since.

The economic arguments were always the very privileged hiding their greed and contempt for the rest of us behind a fine veneer. I truly believe some of them even came to believe it to help themselves sleep at night. It doesn’t mean we all have to drink it.

[linuxftw]

> There is nothing preventing socialised medicine for working. It costs less per capita nowadays than it did when it was put in place and productivity skyrocketed since.

That's because of the budget cuts. Service will continue to be trimmed until the system collapses.

[stevezsa8]

I feel you're kinda moving the goal posts here.

From "always going to be unaffordable" to "Service will continue to be trimmed until the system collapses"

[linuxftw]

That's what unaffordable means. If it's unaffordable, you can't maintain it indefinitely. You might maintain it for some time, but inevitably it's going to have its budget cut, which will induce more problems, rinse, repeat.

[oliwarner]

That's not unaffordable, that's not afforded.

Choosing not to pay for something —when you pay for so much else— isn't the same thing as not being able to afford its upkeep. It's an active decision, not a passive imbalance.

There is a level of healthcare that we cannot afford, but pretending that we're there already when we know privatising elements is going to make it more expensive for everyone is not honest. There are enough variations on the theme to know what works, and that our current system —while starved, and poorly served by central political whimsy— still delivers the best value out of any healthcare system.

As I've said elsewhere, subsidised childcare, after-school programmes, and mental and social health care all network together to keep us working at our best. Not only are they cheaper when centralised, relieving the burden makes people happier. Having to choose between your health and your job is no way to live and this ethos of welfare, having your citizens' backs is a key aspect of high-tax society. Once you stop worrying about poor people with less, life is better.

[linuxftw]

What you're describing is a communist welfare system. Little incentive for individuals to work hard, you'll just increase the number of people totally dependent upon the system. Not sustainable.

[jerojero]

Why having the government in charge of something means it's going to be inefficient?

Ultimately the government needs to be in charge of healthcare because healthcare is not a simple service but a human right. In many ways, we might trade the benefits of competition (which in the long run do end up ruining the system, just look at the USA) for the benefits of democratic ownership.

In any case, as others have pointed out, the system can be turned inefficient if government by government you dismantle the system a little bit and that's precisely what's been happening in the UK. However, this is not something that has happened in other countries in Europe and in general socialised healthcare gives us the highest life expectancy numbers.

[psd1]

> Having the government in charge of something means it's always going to be inefficient.

A peculiarly American dogma. The irony of trotting it out on the field of healthcare is lost on you, I suppose, but gave me a laugh. Thanks.