The French are striking again... But they do have socialized health care

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7100215.stm

The French are striking again. This time it's a transit strike. And this time it isn't people rioting because of the unemployment and crummy economy caused by the unrealistic socialized systems they could never pay for. Although that indirectly led to these strikes. They finally kicked the socialists out and accepted someone like Sarkozy (and to the French this was a huge dose of Castor Oil), because they realized their way doesn't work. Now that he is doing what he said he'd do -- no more crazy government programs promising the world to everyone (Hey Mr. Civil Servant, take a full month off each year and then retire at 50 with a full pension and medical benefits; who cares how we are going to pay for this) -- they are striking.

They've already begun yanking benefits from their socialized medical system, it is no longer universal, and the thing has been crumbling and operating at a huge loss that cripples their economy. I can't imagine the riots and strikes when they finally have to act on that and admit that quality health care is as costly in France as it is in the U.S. and that there is no magic pill for covering everyone without it being paid for somehow. The crazy thing is that every time someone offers them up as a model for us, and I've pointed out on here that the cost has been huge in terms of people out of work and a stagnant economy (while its neighboring countries have done much better over the last two decades), no one wants to discuss that part of it.

 

EVERYONE believes that health care should be universal. That isn't the issue. But the Germans and English have never had a system like the French system (and we can get into their problems separately, if you prefer) -- which is the one that got held up as a particular beacon when Michael Moore's movie came out (it is much harder to find a British person who will speak glowingly of his system, because they ration to the point that most people with serious problems leave the UK and get their health care elsewhere, where they can actually get taken care of). I wish unlimited, best-quality health care was universal and available to everyone, just like you do. I just know that there is no possible socialized system that can provide it, because there is a big difference between simply saying, "We should have this" and figuring out how to pay for it without destroying your economy. This is such a huge part of the GDPs of industrialized, western countries. The French, with their overly socialized society, are proof of what failure this sort of thinking is. You are correct that the French have always rioted. They have been conditioned to expect the government to give them everything. And when they don't get it, they strike or riot. All of these strikes and riots have been economic in nature, one way or another. When unemployment is more than 10 percent and stays that way for years, people riot. When the economy is almost moving backward, while places like the U.S. are growing, people riot. You can read that story I posted all you want and look for the words health care, and you won't find it, but that was the point I made at the end of my post. THESE are the costs they have paid for their unrealistic systems, including their health care system, which they could never pay for. You want to talk about socialized health care. I want to force you to acknowledge that when you (or if not you, others who have) hold up the French as a paradigm, you have to look at life as a Frenchman in its totality, and acknowledge the costs they have paid to get that health care system people have said WE should have. They are striking now, because an unrealistic government-run perk -- just like their socialized health system -- has to be yanked because they could never afford to live up to the promises they made. They will strike or riot again, when their health system finally crumbles (and it has already caused strife, because the debt they have run up on it has forced them to start pulling benefits and disqualifying groups of people already, and we are one band-aid away from Sarkozy giving them another huge dose of reality).

 

FB, We "overpay" for drugs, in part, because we have been subsidizing the rest of the world, which have imposed price controls (they haven't made health care cheaper. They have strong-armed companies, which have then passed the costs to Americans). The best medical advances have largely come out of the United States over the last 50 years. There is a reason for that. We give them incentive to operate and profit and do R&D. But it is, in fact, why health care has become so expensive. We have more treatments for more things and more people wanting to avail themselves of them. We can put price controls on drug companies. We can also shut down drug pipelines and give up on curing diseases.

We are in agreement about OUR system's warts. We essentially have various middlemen (insurance companies and government being the big two) that add inefficiencies and costs to what would be less expensive (but still not affordable for most people) if we went to a simple pay-as-you-go system. Within the next 10 years, health care will account for 20 percent of U.S. GDP. We spend more on health care than we do on food. Do you realize how much it would cost to pay for that? Show me a realistic plan and I'll end this argument. Everything else is rhetoric and populist BS designed to let people hear what they WANT to hear.

Just because we end up paying more for these inefficiencies, doesn't mean that it is the ONLY thing preventing universal, best-quality health care. In fact, it is a relatively small part of our problem. Health care is a bit more expensive than you seem to want to acknowledge, and it if we continue this argument, can you say how much more of their paycheck to the government people will be willing to pay for what will amount to more inefficiencies, bureaucracy and poor coverage? Does 15 percent more in taxes sound good to everyone who wants universal health care--that let's face it, will suck and will leave people frustrated with their inability to get timely care? Let's not forget, even with all of our warts, 84 percent of Americans do have health care coverage, and we really do have the best system in the world in terms of quality of care and treatments available. People from these socialized countries fly HERE to get their care. So many people uncovered is not good (it downright sucks), but it's not surprising and about on par for where we should be, given how expensive this all is. Again, there is no magic pill that can make this all affordable enough to give everyone everything.

That McKinsey report you are fond of -- their bottom line was actually NOT what you want to hear. Their conclusion wasn't that we are getting ripped off and if we stop getting ripped off everything is suddenly affordable. It was that we are paying too much because of a failure by the intermediation system (government, employers, insurance companies) to give people incentives to be value-conscious. We're overspending because we're overusing (the blame falls on consumers and providers), not because we are being overcharged.