# Alternatives to socialized health care **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 13, 2006, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216 "2006-03-13T19:37:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/41 "2006-03-14T09:43:06Z")
> [@Anne Neville](#): > > Exactly, and that’s why the rest of us, who don’t game the system, have to wait so long in emergency rooms. But is it “gaming the system” if you don’t have any other access to medical care? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/42 "2006-03-14T10:07:33Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > I wonder what they would think of a quasi-governmental health care system, which would be connected only tenuously to the current branches of government. Something like the Federal Reserve, where governmental influence is somewhat restricted to the appointment of governing board members to 14 year terms. That should keep it relatively out of partisan politics. Only to some extent. In France, the public healthcare system isn’t ran by the government, but by an entity headed by half elected representative of the unions and half elected representatives of the employers (for historical reasons : the french public healthcare system was build upon the existing systems put in place by collective agreements in various industrial branches and originally covered only workers and retired workers). However, essentially any significant decision has to be accepted (if not imposed)by the government because it requires some sort of legislation to be enforceable. And when people, or doctors, etc… are unhappy with something related to the healthcare system, it’s the government that gets the flak, and legitimately so, because when all is said and done, it’s still up to it to decide. An unelected body would hardly have the legitimacy to make decisions that impact directly people’s life (or even death), people’s paychecks, etc… ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/43 "2006-03-14T10:23:34Z")
> [@mr\_moonlight](#): > > I don’t see how socialized health care makes medicine safe for the ignorant. For one thing, it’s not run by people who have a financial motivation to screw you. > [@mr\_moonlight](#): > > Does that same couch potato have the right to rob the healthy next-door neighbor at gunpoint to pay for his diabetes medicines? If they have no other means of getting the medicine, then yes. Survival trumps property rights, and a society that doesn’t bother to provide health care to those who need it has already announced it’s time for the law of the jungle anyway. > [@clairobscur](#): > > But is it “gaming the system” if you don’t have any other access to medical care? IMHO, yes, but it’s _justified_ gaming. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/44 "2006-03-14T10:43:55Z")
> [@tombigbee](#): > > Right, I understand. Do you think the solutions will cost more money, increase per capita spending? I saw an article about reforms France was proposing for 2004 or thereabouts for “projected overspend this year of eight billion pounds.” I havn’t found an update about how it’s going, if it’s working, etc. I don’t know if it will work, but yes, a number of reforms have been implemented. For instance, a number of drugs with an “unsufficient medical benefit” aren’t reimbursed anymore, or only partially reimbursed (don’t worry, homeopathy is still partially reimbursed due probably to its well proven efficiency). Also, there’s 1€ co-pay for each visit to a doctor that isn’t reimbursed nor by the healthcare ysem, nor by the mutual insurances(\*). You won’t be able to see a specialist without being refered to him by a generalist first and be fully reimbursed anymore. And finally we’ll have to pick a generalist and to “register” with him to be fully reimbursed. You can switch to another if you want to and I understand that’s it’s intended to prevent people from seing half a dozen different doctors for the same issue but I still don’t like the concept of not being able to see whoever I want whenever I want. It makes perfect sense when your medical expenses are covered by the collectivity, but I’ve not been accustomed to that. Besides, I had actually two doctors, who are twin brothers working in the same cabinet, and having to choose one put me in a diplomatically delicate situation. (\*) There are complementary insurances in France, and many of them, rather than for-profit companies owned by stockholders are “mutual insurances”, non-profit organizations ran by the elected representants of the insured people. They’re also very influential in healthcare policies since they’re federated and generally mostly in agreement and represent a huge number of people. I’ve always been surprised that these are apparently mostly non-existent in the USA. I just received the documents for the election of the board of directors of my insurer, for instance, and I certainly think it beats being dependant on the decisions made to please stockholders. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/45 "2006-03-14T10:54:48Z")
> [@mr\_moonlight](#): > > Socializing the costs of medicine appears to me to be a way to transfer the costs of one’s unhealthy habits to others. This seems immoral to me. Can someone explain to me why a fit, non-smoking adult, who chooses to forgo cable TV in order to spend extra money on a diet high in fresh fruits and vegetables should have to pay for the insulin shots of the Twinkie-eating chain-smoking couch potato that lives next door? Problem is : since in the USA, you don’t leave people with unhealthy habbits die in the streets, when fire comes to stove, you also end up footing the bill for these people. Which is the right thing to do, anyway, IMO. Especially since it’s difficult to assess who has unhealthy habbits. For instance I don’t own a car, and cars are notoriously dangerous. Should I pay when a car-owner needs medical care because he was involved in an accident? ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/46 "2006-03-14T12:30:18Z")
> [@mr\_moonlight](#): > > Socializing the costs of medicine appears to me to be a way to transfer the costs of one’s unhealthy habits to others. This seems immoral to me. Can someone explain to me why a fit, non-smoking adult, who chooses to forgo cable TV in order to spend extra money on a diet high in fresh fruits and vegetables should have to pay for the insulin shots of the Twinkie-eating chain-smoking couch potato that lives next door? It’s just more obvious when it’s a tax aided system. Someone still has to pay. In the States if the couch potato has insurance then they pay and the price of insurance will cover this cost. Even if the employee doesn’t pay the company he works for does and so the employees job may not be as secure due to medical costs for the company. At the end of the day you still are paying directly or indirectly for the medical of others. One advantage a socialized system delivers is that it generally helps the poor to stay healthier than they would in a US type system. I’ve read lots of examples on the SDMB of people not seeking out medical help because of the costs. Something that may cost a few hundred bucks to fix is let become something that eventually costs thousands to a ER because of the patients inability to pay. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/47 "2006-03-14T14:31:46Z")
> [@Anne Neville](#): > > OK, _you_ run for office on a platform of passing a law saying that anyone who is on life support has to be taken off, and that certain patients should be left to die instead of receiving medical treatment. You’ll piss off the “culture of life” types _and_ the majority of us who don’t think the government should be involved in such decisions. You’ve gotten liberal me to agree with Terri Schiavo’s parents on a political issue- _that’s_ impressive. I think I’ve got a few candidates I’d like you to run against… If I’m pissing everyone off, I must be on to something 😛 And I mostly agree with you - laws aren’t the best way to go about fixing problems. I think getting the major players in the healthcare industries and the insurance industries to sit down together and start evaluating treatments based on expected returns might do alot for the situation. Maybe legislate some incentives to instigate the changes… Though, since this is where the bulk of their income is, they might be hesitant to change. And I’d be more than happy to run on an unpopular platform (I think it’d be fun to spin this into something more palletable for the general population), are you going to fund me? Senator Spaz… I like the sound of that 😛 ---
**Author:** ![tombigbee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@tombigbee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tombigbee)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/48 "2006-03-14T16:03:09Z")
> [@cerberus](#): > > [and private care is alive and well.](http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/public_vs_private.html) At the end of the above article: > [@](#): > > Schumacher argues further privatization will not spell the end of medicare as we know it. “People worry that if doctors can go private, then they’re going to quit the public system. I would argue the opposite. If a doctor can take part of their practice private, they’re less likely to leave because they’re not tied solely to the government’s fee schedule.” I know the definition of “medicare” there is different than it is here, but they are comparable I think. Isn’t it a trend here that doctors are seeing fewer or no Medicare patients? ---
**Author:** ![WaryEri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ea666f/32.png) [@WaryEri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WaryEri)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/49 "2006-03-14T16:35:53Z")
> [@tombigbee](#): > > At the end of the above article: > > I know the definition of “medicare” there is different than it is here, but they are comparable I think. Isn’t it a trend here that doctors are seeing fewer or no Medicare patients? Not all that comparable. Canadian Medicare is universal. Canadian doctors seeing no Medicare patients would see few patients indeed. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/50 "2006-03-14T17:08:15Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > For one thing, it’s not run by people who have a financial motivation to screw you. OK I call bullshit on this. How can you possibly reach this conclusion? Government has just as much, if not more motive to screw you. Elected officials are only there for a limited time. Get in - exploit the system personal gain - get out. There’s no one to answer to after that. Companies atleast have to look after their own reputation. > [@](#): > > If they have no other means of getting the medicine, then yes. Survival trumps property rights, and a society that doesn’t bother to provide health care to those who need it has already announced it’s time for the law of the jungle anyway. I disagree. The couch-potato-diabetic could have just as easily changed his diet and started excersizing as he robbed his neighbor. By arguing at the extremities (life/death situations) you’re not doing justice to the average folks who just have allergy problems, or just need a doctor once in a while when they get sick. You can’t create a system tailored to the minority. It will, by definition, be an unfair system. You should treat the terminal like what they are - the exception. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/51 "2006-03-14T17:33:55Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > And finally we’ll have to pick a generalist and to “register” with him to be fully reimbursed. You can switch to another if you want to and I understand that’s it’s intended to prevent people from seing half a dozen different doctors for the same issue but I still don’t like the concept of not being able to see whoever I want whenever I want. It makes perfect sense when your medical expenses are covered by the collectivity, but I’ve not been accustomed to that. Besides, I had actually two doctors, who are twin brothers working in the same cabinet, and having to choose one put me in a diplomatically delicate situation. My very good private insurance works this way. I’m registered with a large group. I have a primary doctor, but in a pinch others from the group can see me also. The group also has specialists, but I can go outside it when necessary. Does the proposed system require you to see one doctor, or allow you to see others in an office? I like the system, actually, since there is continuity of care. My late mother in law had constant issues with drug interactions, from seeing different doctors for different issues, and I think this kind of policy has benefits in reducing that kind of problem. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/52 "2006-03-14T17:42:01Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > I disagree. The couch-potato-diabetic could have just as easily changed his diet and started excersizing as he robbed his neighbor. By arguing at the extremities (life/death situations) you’re not doing justice to the average folks who just have allergy problems, or just need a doctor once in a while when they get sick. You can’t create a system tailored to the minority. It will, by definition, be an unfair system. You should treat the terminal like what they are - the exception. I hate to break this to you, but we’re all going to be terminal at some time or another. Some of us will conveniently die quickly, though. What I’d like to know is how you’re going to distinguish this couch potato from someone with genetic problems, who sucks up health care for no fault of her own. I’m naturally healthy, and have chloresterol low enough that not even my doctor complains, but this is from the luck of the draw, not from any great moral edge I have. The whole point of insurance is to spread risk across as large a population as possible. That’s why a single payer system will always beat a multiple payer system using the same rules. I haven’t seen the overhead the current system adds to doctors’ offices addressed either. Each doctor’s office, or even my small dentist’s office, has at least one person working full time to handle insurance and billing issues. I’m sure this overhead could be mostly eliminated with a single payer system. Those living in such a system - do your doctors have insurance specialists associated with them? ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/53 "2006-03-14T17:48:51Z")
but with a single payer system… whats to stop one from strong-arming the other? Especially when one is The Law? How would you drive innovation in healthcare management? Instead of your office employee, you’d replace it with a local government office to handle payment and whatnot? ---
**Author:** ![tombigbee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@tombigbee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tombigbee)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/54 "2006-03-14T18:30:34Z")
> [@WaryEri](#): > > Not all that comparable. Canadian Medicare is universal. Canadian doctors seeing no Medicare patients would see few patients indeed. I would like to quit comparing things to what we have now (although I did it myself.) We obviously need reform. Consider this from _The New York Times_, 2/2006: > [@](#): > > Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor. I recognize that they are working to remedy this problem, but what caused it? Is it because they didn’t have a mix of public and private like with other systems in Europe? Have European systems solved this problem? ---
**Author:** ![tombigbee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@tombigbee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tombigbee)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/55 "2006-03-14T19:03:12Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yet another problem with consumer-directed care is that the evidence says that people don’t, in fact, make wise decisions when paying for medical care out of pocket. A classic study by the Rand Corporation found that when people pay medical expenses themselves rather than relying on insurance, they do cut back on their consumption of health care—but that they cut back on valuable as well as questionable medical procedures, showing no ability to set sensible priorities. […] Ok, I’m no longer for consumer-directed care being the sole solution. What if we had a mixure? I like HSAs because that’s how I paid for my elective eye surgery. Also, I would like health insurance policies to be more consumer-friendly. If we went to mandatory insurance, paid for by employers but making it completely portable and individually-owned, consumers would choose their insurance plan. I can choose between plans now during open season, but I have a hard time understanding the brochures and comparing benefits. I have not researched what is proposed for unemployed people, but first things first. > [@](#): > > That goal [consumer-driven health care] is the underpinning of the health savings accounts touted by President Bush and others as a way to check rising health care costs. The accounts, which allow people to save money for medical expenses tax-free, **are paired with health plans with high deductibles**. (my bold) > > Disclosing limited information on prices and quality, though, is just the first step. Employers now must get people to use it. > > “You have to get consumers to understand the role they play in controlling health care costs,” said Dianne Kiehl, executive director of the Business Health Care Group. [JS Online:Health plan lifts the veil on charges](http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=403820&date=2/23/2006) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/56 "2006-03-14T19:40:25Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > but with a single payer system… whats to stop one from strong-arming the other? Especially when one is The Law? How would you drive innovation in healthcare management? Instead of your office employee, you’d replace it with a local government office to handle payment and whatnot? The government is strong arming people now. The Times yesterday reported that pharmacists in Texas came to the White House to complain to Rove that they were losing money on the new Medicare program, since they were forced by the plans to take less than their costs. This is the same plan, remember, that forbade negotiating with drug companies. The pharmacists are Republicans, and they’re pissed. Anyhow, what you call strong arming I call negotiation. The US is clearly getting ripped off. As for savings - the insurance interfaces in the places I go seem to know the magic numbers to use to assign to procedures so the insurance companies will pay, get pre-approval of procedures, and understand the zillions of different plans their patients are covered by, with zillions of different forms. Don’t you think one standard plan will save lots of money? ---
**Author:** ![tombigbee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@tombigbee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tombigbee)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/57 "2006-03-14T21:06:44Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > That’s why a single payer system will always beat a multiple payer system using the same rules. I haven’t seen the overhead the current system adds to doctors’ offices addressed either. Each doctor’s office, or even my small dentist’s office, has at least one person working full time to handle insurance and billing issues. I’m sure this overhead could be mostly eliminated with a single payer system. What if the costs to include the uninsured in a single payer system equaled out to about the same as before – as in Taiwan’s case? Considering the problems in other systems that they are having to tweak/reform and not knowing at this point if they will work, if they will solve budget problems, or avoid the coming crisis with long-term care for the huge number of seniors, and considering that there are proposals to address administrative costs/efficiency issues anyway, should we still choose socialized health care over mandatory insurance, etc? The moral choice **has** to include a way for everyone to have insurance, IMO. Considering a population that is divided between conservatives, moderates and liberals, that overwhelmingly either chooses not to or has barriers to exercising regularly and making the wisest food choices, etc., and that is likely to continually fight over tax rates… …given all that and supposing that we will have to make compromises before anything is changed nationwide, and stressing again the hypothetical “what if the costs were about the same,” would mandatory insurance, etc. be acceptable? Anyone? > [@](#): > > Our data show that Taiwan was able to adopt the NHI without using measurably more resources than what it would have spent without the program. [Lessons from Taiwan](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/phcf/Papers/does%20universal%20health%20insurance%20make%20health%20care%20unaffordable.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/58 "2006-03-14T22:23:44Z")
> [@tombigbee](#): > > What if the costs to include the uninsured in a single payer system equaled out to about the same as before – as in Taiwan’s case? It would be an excellent result. Thanks for the link - I just browsed it, but it is good data. It sounds like in Taiwan, at least partially, reduced transaction costs paid for the previously uninsured. I think we might do better, since more insurance could mean more prevention, and thus lower cost and earlier treatments. But even if this does not happen, care for all at the same price is a good thing. > [@](#): > > Considering the problems in other systems that they are having to tweak/reform and not knowing at this point if they will work, if they will solve budget problems, or avoid the coming crisis with long-term care for the huge number of seniors, and considering that there are proposals to address administrative costs/efficiency issues anyway, should we still choose socialized health care over mandatory insurance, etc? Everyone is going to have the senior problem. I heard Lester Thurow say China is going to get hit worse than us because of their low birthrate. As for problems, anything we adopt will have problems, but they seem to be less than the ones we have today. As for mandatory insurance, I have some questions. Does everyone get the same coverage? How many hours are required for coverage? My daughter knows people employed by retailers with good insurance who can only get a number of hours per week that is just below the minimum needed for the insurance to cut in. If there are loopholes that allow employers to cheap out to reduce their costs, they’ll often take them. Of course, keeping the same multipayer system won’t reduce paperwork as much, and thus not reduce costs. So, I’m not sure it is a good idea in practice. ---
**Author:** ![tombigbee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@tombigbee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tombigbee)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/59 "2006-03-14T22:49:04Z")
I knew I messed this up! I meant what if the costs to move to a mandatory insurance, etc. system cost us about the same as now? It seems Taiwan didn’t save any money going National – is it unaceptable if we don’t save any money going Mandatory? I looked at the National Center for Policy Analysis to see what’s being proposed, and it looks like PT would be covered, and that people would choose between different plans. I don’t know if that means that every 60-year-old could get the same coverage or not, but it makes sense that a 20-year-old and a 60-year old would have different needs. I’ll keep looking… > [@](#): > > Reform No. 8: Insurance Options for Part-time Employees. Part-time work is common, especially for single mothers and spouses in two-earner couples. While some need health insurance, those who don’t should be able to choose between health insurance and higher wages. As in the previous example, employers generally cannot give their employees such choices under current law. [NCPA Brief Analysis 497](http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba497/) ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2006, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216/60 "2006-03-15T00:45:00Z")
> [@tombigbee](#): > > I recognize that they are working to remedy this problem, but what caused it? What is the root cause of the doctor shortage? A shortage of places in university medicine programs. It’s certainly not a shortage of people wanting to become doctors, as entry into medicine is ridiculously competitive. I have no clue why more positions aren’t made available, but I really can’t see how it is in any way related to our socialized medicine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alternatives-to-socialized-health-care/348216.md?page=4)