Originally Posted By: pariah
Maybe you and I have different standards, but I had to deal with socialist healthcare in France and Japan when I went to the Istres Air Base and Camp Zama. In both instances, the service was sluggish and intolerable. The queues were enormous and I didn't get to pick the specialists I needed or wanted to see. There was a huge wait period just for me to see a doctor who had to confirm my condition so he could allow me to see a specialist (not to mention they forced me to register for a medical card). Even after that, I wasn't even allowed to pick the specialist.

England may be different, but I've heard that their system isn't so dissimilar from France.


You've just described to a "T" the exact same process my mother went through with her HMO when she had a bout of "woman cancer." But you left out the part where the HMO left her holding half the bills during a $150,000 two year treatment cycle and lost her house.

I don't know if you've been in an American hospital lately, but the lines for emergency room visits and urgent care are intolerably long already. Rarely do you get to pick the specialist, or get to see a specialist without first seeing a GP. Doesn't matter if it's socialist or not. Unless you're paying a private doctor, you get who they give you or you wait even longer.

Socialism doesn't create long lines or extended waits. I don't know where this myth came from, but the truth is that hospitals across the entire spectrum of funding schemes face this problem. It's due to population increasing disproportionately to the number of health care professionals and health care institutions.

Been noticing a huge number of "become a nurse" commercials lately? Ever wonder why that is?

Now, waiting for surgery does take longer in Britain, but that's because many doctors there choose not to become specialists or surgeons.

We still lead the world in specialists, of course it's because they make a grossly inflated sum of money over nonspecialists, but what good does it do us when over half the population can't get access to them?

 Quote:
I would disagree with the idea the US military's medical policy qualifies as socialist. It seems more analogous to an occupational health-plan.


Except for the fact that I've not come across a single other occupational health plan that pays 100% of hospital\dental\psychiatric costs and pharmaceutical expenses, nor I have I come across another one that's funded with tax-payer money. However, I have come across more than one national health plan that sounds exactly like that. If society pitches in and pays for it, by definition it's socialist.

 Quote:
Honestly, I don't see how it can be reasoned either way. China brought back the execution of newborn baby girls, does that mean we should follow suit just because they feel that's more enlightened?


Again, a non point. Let's review;
ME: "Socialized health care does not exclude private care."
Retort: "Well until 2005 in Canada it did."

You can't go cherry picking through history looking for scenarios that you think prove your point while ignoring current facts.

Currently, in Canada ( as well as other countries with socialized medicine ), national health care does not automatically preclude private care. If you have the money, you can get whatever you want. But if you don't, at least you're not completely ruined by a largely inevitable major illness or medical need.