slug.com slug.com

33 0

After living in Sweden and USA for a very long time I firmly believe USA needs healthcare like the Scandinavian model.

Change my mind.

#USA
svenskost 5 Mar 8
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

33 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

5

Disagree,
All the nordic countries combined almost equal the population of Texas. And everyone works. We have Dependapotims living on welfare eating like shit. So no not enough money for that.

Wicked.. and I can't not agree with this. I am a "Medicare/Medicaid" consultant and the stories I hear make me weepy .. We need to expand the medicaid system to include more.. An elderly US citizen doesn't deserve to eat beans and rice on a daily basis to afford their insulin just because they are $20 over the national poverty ratio. I'm ready for some tidy and tiny steps right now.. Turning the system upside down isn't going to work..

@MaggieMae1 what part do you agree with or disagree with. The facts I stated were true Nordic countries are about the population of Texas how can you disagree with that it's a statement of fact. Then you must disagree with that it's not more tribal than United States it's more one type of culture and person unlike our country. That was my only point is you could not enact a Healthcare System you use in a place like that here because none of it would apply. In an earlier post I saw you basically stated what I stated and so I'm not sure how you can disagree with my statement.

@MaggieMae1 if it was the part about the welfare dependents. I understand each human has a story. And I have a story too. A my story involves me keeping my money for myself and not giving it to people who won't go out and do for themselves. There are more people in the wagon then pulling it this is not sustainable so if you disagree with my stance that we can't afford to take care of all these people who won't take care of themselves I don't see how you can disagree with that. This is not an emotional reply to their plight it's a logical one not everybody gets to live. As a matter of fact nobody makes it out alive.

@Wicked_Ironman I don't know what the cost of a fully staffed operating theatre is. I'm not sure what the cost is of booking time in one, plus all the diagnostic work and postoperative care. I don't think that for most people, keeping our money to ourselves, and buying these services out of pocket, is going to work.

But we benefit by being members of a club that makes these things available to us. They are so expensive though, that pretty much everyone needs a membership to keep the club going. That, I'll admit is where things get sticky - but "everybody keeping their own money" simply means that the USA won't have a system that makes for a healthy population, a ready workforce, and a consumer market with discretionary spending power.

4

Instead of me changing your mind, how about you change your residency? If the Nordic countries have what you desire, go there. Read or watch "Atlas Shrugged" during your trip.

Moving is just too simple of an answer. This is why I'm here on IDW to spark ideas of what is a manageable heath care system and come up with solutions.

At some point in your life you will get old and should not worry about your heath care.
At some point in your life you will get sick and should not worry about if you can afford to go to the doctor.
If you get some long term illness it should not ruin you financially.
It would be nice to go and work for a company not based on their health plan.

Cheers,

3

Disagree - All healthcare models are wrong. Medicine is what needs to be fixed. We have the technology to produce cures for everything. But then, that would put a lot of people out of work and groups of people would lose tons of money. Right now people are just cash cows for the medical community herded through the healthcare system. I say release the suppressed healing technologies and go from there.

3

My wife lived in Canada. Canada has about 10% of the people as the US. Their system doesn't work either. Our's would be 10 time worse. `My wife is a medical professionsal, Trama Codinator for a Trama hospital, and ER nurse, she knows what is is talking about. Socialized anything does not work.

3

Medicare was introduced in Australia in 1984 which is in effect a socialist style health system. We used to pay 1% of our yearly income into the system but its now 2%. It was introduced by a "leftie" government. Put into action as a pay to play by the succeeding conservative government and then introduced universally by the next "leftie" government. It has its ups and downs but generally speaking a doctors visit won't cost you anything. Urgent surgeries will happen quickly but less urgent may take you a while (unless you are waiting on Manus island where an ingrown toenail is considered urgent!!) Ambulance services, at least in QLD are also "free". We would pay for it through some kind of tax of course.
I think the reason we got the health system we have is because there was no social media back then to condemn every government move although from memory there were objections to it but not enough to sway a government away from introducing it. Its just a part of life now for us here and although it certainly has its problems i doubt you would find many Australians that would want it taken away.

3

Disagree.

The United States does need to do something with its health care system and it can. In Sweden, as with any socialist institution, they are immutable. You yourself, believe it is so good it should be adopted by other nations. Any thing that is so good cannot be progressive and I'll bet it is impossible to change perceived flaws in the Swedish model are more than likely met with cries for more resources.

A socialist program generally lasts about 3 generations and maximally four before it collapses. They are similar to Ponzi schemes. First in gets all the benefit. Last in loses everything before it collapses. Sweden is approaching the end of its generational term. Taxation to pay for health care in Sweden is probably more than what you would pay for private insurance. As the taxes become higher the nation becomes poorer and thus less people are contributing so it eventually goes broke.

Europe is quite socialist and it looks like the EU is about to collapse. The EU is a manifestation of socialism and its ideological desire to centralize power.

Socialism was popular in the 1930's. There was the great Marxist socialist experiment of the USSR and then there were national socialists like Hitler and Mussolini. Socialism was expected to replace the European feudal Monarchist system after WWI which basically destroyed them or rendered them symbolic curiosities as far as governance is concerned. The intellectual and political class of the time were very interested in what Hitler and Mussolini were doing and watching events in the USSR and Maoist China. The world seemed hell bent on collectivist ideology. Even FDR went as far as he could introducing a five year plan, similar to Stalin's, in order to bring America out of the great depression. The remnants of that era still exist in social security and other federal programs. The US constitution prevented a full blown adoption of socialism. Then WWII happened and socialism, especially of the nationalist variety, was tainted. It is slowly making headway again as the world gets smaller.

But getting back to health care better ideas are needed than an immutable government run socialist program. P.J. O'Rourke, a conservative journalist and writer, said in one of his books, "There is nothing more conservative than a liberal institution." Socialist Health care programs are a great illustration of this.

Would you think the Singaporean system as a better alternative?

P.J. O'Rourke also prophetically said, "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait and see how much it costs when it's free."

@Berniful Have you seem the movie 'Wait till it's free"?
[vimeo.com]

@svenskost Most systems are systems of health insurance and not health care. Singapore is rated quite high. I do think that medicine should not be based on the business model entirely. I think medicine as a career is more a calling than a career and perhaps if it were based more on the charitable model would appeal to a more dedicated personnel. Just a suggestion on my part. I know the medical establishment would not like that as it cuts into their wallets.

As I said though, once it is a socialist health insurance scheme it is almost impossible to introduce change. It looks like Singapore has a few options and is malleable. Better than the Canadian system for sure.

Once a socialist system is in place there is no shortage of practices that wish to board the gravy train, e.g. acupuncturists, naturopaths, chiropractors, homeopaths, etc. Government decides what will be included as Health care and what your insurance can buy.

@VonO No, thanks for the heads-up.

2

In my opinion you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Sweden is a small country. The USA is huge,
The population in Sweden is more confined in a few area and more spread out in the USA, as are the health risks and hazards, age and
access to support systems The people of Sweden are not as diverse ethnically, financially and educationally as in the USA. Because of that the USA has many more people that are dependent on the government and fewer working people that would have to support universal health care. There is also the fact that we would also have to do something about Malpractice insurance, cost of medical training, and every currency in the world is tied to the USD and world markets would be affected by USA moving to universal health care. They tried it in Vermont - a small, liberal state and even they had to abandon it as not viable in our culture.
That is just my opinion.

2

I would be against anything that would require 100 percent participation, this would need great force to implement. Families who today still have a choice to adopt traditional roles in the household would generally speaking go broke paying the necessary taxes. I would not object to a trial of this regionally. States like California or New York would be ideal, both states have a substantial economy, larger populations, incomes and dependents that cover every variant. The next variable would be illegal immigration and Healthcare Fraud, a control on these would be absolutely necessary or this proposed healthcare system will implode. Overall I fear the same results as in any government funded program; sub-par healthcare and horrible service. Citizens will still have to purchase private insurance in order to receive better care, see US medicare part C, part D, see Canada, see Sweden, see the UK.

2

Can't see why I need to help you change your mind........ all you indicated was health care like Sweden. I have never been sick in Sweden so how can I change your mind when I know nothing about healthcare in Sweden?

Is this a trick question or are you trying to start a ruckus?

2

As long as your honest about raising the poor people's tax rate to 60% instead of pretending that rich people will pay for it. Should also recognize that there will be a huge hit to global medical technology development. The medical developments of tomorrow will never happen.

I think that "medical developments of tomorrow will never happen" is a bit of a weak argument. I think innovation will still continue. Look at Germany in the medical field.

@svenskost medical innovations can’t happen in America without large sums of money. It’s to expensive to get new medication and technology approved for use. If you have less government control you can have innovative with out a high price tag.

1

I'm sure Sweden has a great system but it still depends on private systems in other countries. Thats where they get the latest treatments without the cost R&D.

1

How do you expect people to be able to afford something so expensive as you are well aware Sweden is broke and can't even fund it properly in Sweden today is a very small country we are a large country

1

It's a matter of picking your poison, I think. Sweden is not a socialist country like many like to say. It's a giant welfare state propped up by a fairly robust capitalist-ish economy. The people of Sweden are gtg with heavy taxation to support said welfare state.

Keep in mind, too, that in Sweden they've been transitioning from publicly owned/operated institutions; like schools, transportation, etc., to privately run. It means less spent on those things to be able to spend on things like medical care. It's much more feasible in a small, relatively mono-cultural society then in a huge country like ours. A pretty good explanation of much of this can be seen here:

1

I believe Sweden is having problems now with their socialized programs. Their population is so much smaller. Their welfare system is totally different. You can't just look at one single thing. How about their middle class pays over 50% in taxes. No tax shelters are deductions. Their contribution to the health industry is almost non existence. The US is where the world comes to have the most advanced health solutions.

1

Go to any after hours clinic and check to see how long you have to wait. As a product of 1950s style health care system, I can tell you getting in to see your doctor would tie up half your day. And if you got sick on a weekend, forget about it. Do you really want to go back to THAT?

1

Cannot be done here because we have 20 million illegals that don’t/won’t pay into the system. Here is how it could possibly work: it needs to be de-centralized. Not national. State by state or even county by county. It’s more manageable then. No illegals can use the system. The region has to have 90% employment or more and all need to be paying into the system. Get rid of malpractice lawyers and streamline admin in medicine and in schools to bring costs down. Then...maybe. And btw, I lived in the UK with the NHS. It and the Swedish system are having problems now because of immigration. Millions of Muslims don’t work. It’s a drain on the system. And yet leftists want open borders! Choose... close borders and keep national healthcare or open them and wait for the collapse. Last, there still needs to be alternatives.. and the ability to go private and jump waiting lists.

1

Well it would help to change your mind if you were to lay out your reasoning? Otherwise I could point out that here in the USA we don't speak Swedish. 🙂

1

I am not sure we can compare Sweden to a large country like the US.. I am in the health care business.. I help people with medicare.. Your suggestion at this juncture would have to be state run as the Bureaucracy would overwhelm the system. To much to soon.. What I do suggest instead of taking such a big leap is to put everyone over 53 without group insurance on medicare and/o r buy into it for a reasonable price.. This would bring prices down in the market and allow the healthier young folks to obtain group insurance through their employers at a more reasonable cost..

Not sure what the definition of "reasonable price" is. Any suggestion like this needs to have a specific range in mind. How many people would it affect? How would it be priced? Just because something is mandated by the government does not mean providers have to accept it.

1

And who is going to pay for this we have twenty two trillion of debt when the Monetary system fails and it will bread will cost one hundred dollars so healthcare for all will break America

0

Wonderful idea. Making it work within the framework of a constitutional republic, and with America's demographics, is the problem. I was raised to not need government services even social security, by being responsible for myself so necessary services may be available for those less fortunate. Then, I watched my parents forced to sign up for Medicare etc just to qualify for their insurance. Contradiction of theoretical vs practical.

0

I would like to know how the Scandinavian model works and why it's so good.

0

Why would we want a "Swedish" health care system. It is more messed up than the one we already have. The model you are advocating has placed your country in financial ruin. We can do that without your help.

Change my mind.

Source:

The issue is that Sweden's misguided immigration policies have drained the budget and raised taxes. You cannot support a universal health care system and at the same time allow unlimited immigration.

@svenskost I would go so far as to say that you can not do either in the long term. Both work independently in the short term but that is it. It looks to me that what the immigration policy did was to speed up an inevitable conclusion. Collapse was on its way it just got here early.

0

If the us had imagination politics like they do it would be ok but since we don’t we need jobs to get it done

0

The scandavian model will not work in the US. Too many people, health services are too expensive in the states and US citizens have some of the most unhealthy lifestyles around consumption in the world. The only way the healthcare problem will be solved here is by the citizens taking it upon themselves to live healthier and stay out of the hospital systems entirely. You have a right to take care of your out health, not a right to healthcare. Home of the brave! Gotta get accountable.

0

I think a better comparison of what would occur in the United States with socialized medicine is what the UK system looks like. Although there is health care for all, the general health care is considered poor with long wait times. Services offered are limited. This can best be compared to the VA system in the US that experiences similar problems.

In the UK, many purchase premium health care plans to utilize health services outside this system to get the health care they feel is needed and missing from the general offering. This is only available to the more wealthy.

With all the problems with our current health care, I still believe the quality of service and the world class leadership in innovation surpasses anything I have seen elsewhere. The greatest expense most people have in the US that is a significant burden is prescription costs. Instead of looking to a new system, we should look at how to fix the biggest pain points in the system we currently have. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:21868
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.