# Devil's advocate: saving America from socialized medicine. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 26, 2009, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032 "2009-01-26T07:39:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2009, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/41 "2009-01-26T23:01:52Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Is this where it’s going to land? Opposition to socialized medicine is driven by contempt for the underclass? I’m not sure if “contempt” is the right word, but that’s the source of my opposition. If America did not have a large underclass, I wouldn’t have a serious objection to socialized medicine here. I imagine that other people would object for other reasons. > [@](#): > > I mean, I sort of thought that it was going somewhere like that, & I think my OP reflects that. But is this really going to be our justification? It’s my justification. Probably other people would see things differently. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2009, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/42 "2009-01-26T23:08:59Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Perhaps you’d like a “separate but equal” health care system, so you would not have to catch cooties from the nasty “underclass” I’m not sure what your point is. As I noted above, we basically have a 2-tiered system in the United States. And yes, I admit that I do not want to live near; share hospitals with; or send my children to school with poor people. Just like most educated people who spend extra money so that they can live in a “nice neighborhood” with “good schools,” which are basically code phrases for neighborhoods and schools which do not have a lot of people from the underclass. If you feel differently, you are free to save money by living in a lousy neighborhood and sending your children to school there. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/43 "2009-01-26T23:18:47Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Young people have fewer healthcare costs than old people. If you have a risk pool including all ages, they tend to subsidize the elderly, which is fair since they will eventually get old themselves and be subsidized. Since they are doing this, it is to their advantage to remove themselves from the system, and go back in when their expected costs are greater than their payments. Obviously this will raise premiums for the elderly, especially those past their earning years and who can’t afford it. But if we are going to have affordable healthcare, then the government (you and me) winds up subsidizing it, so those who opt out when they are young get too cheap care at the taxpayer’s expense. . OK, I didn’t realize that you meant that somehow the young people would be able to avoid paying whatever tax is going to subsidize this plan. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/44 "2009-01-26T23:28:24Z")
> [@InterestedObserver](#): > > Not debating or referencing anyone here, having only read a few posts, but just offering my perspective. > > I personally have a few concerns with the models of “socialized” health care I’ve seen, including the issue of opting out (making it mandatory, both in terms of having insurance and of certain “preventative” procedures). I do not look forward to a mandatory version of the cradle to grave medical model of “health care” currently in vougue. And I want to see people able to seek “alternative” care like midwifery or naturopathic. I have no problem with (properly trained) midwives, but most -pathics are pure placebos. I am honestly not against placebos for short term pain. Some countries still have pharmacies stocked with varies colors and sizes of sugar pill. The only issue there is that to work the patient can’t know what he/she is getting, but most -pathic is overpriced water or, if it actually has active ingredients, poorly regulated and controlled drugs of unknown potency. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, I feel strongly that health care is a basic human right. Ability to pay should never be an issue when there is a serious concern about health or an immediate need for care. Basic medical, absolutely. A need for surgery or infection meds or ER care, yes. Free to all. No question. > > For the most part, my family has been healthy and taken responsibility for our health and paid out of pocket. At most, we did annual medical, dental, vision visits. We used “alternative” providers for most of our needs, including the births of our 2 children. > We never ran to the Dr for minor issues or ones we knew to be self-resolving. We ate well, exercised, did everything possible to be healthy. (good thing, given no insurance) I reckon we saved the state many thousands in unneeded care during our time as eligible for state funding. The home births, paid out of pocket, cost roughly 10 grand less than the typical hospital births the state would have gladly paid for (but hesitated to for a home birth) > > But my husband had this genetic condition, with which he wasn’t diagnosed until age 30, and which didn’t leave him disabled until age 42 or so, and which didn’t kill him until 45, and which we had no health coverage to deal with regardless. > > The fact that we lacked any medical coverage played a huge role in his death. He could likely have lived many years longer if he’d had insurance/coverage and been able to seek regular monitoring and treatment. > > As it was, he only sought care at the end, when it was too late. (yes, I argued with him, but he was so concerned about the costs, he refused) > > I feel the biggest issue wrt health care costs in this nation are 1. the unhealthy practices of our people (poor diet, lack of exercise, other lifestyle traits) and 2. the > over-reliance of the medical feild on technology and intervention and DRUGS at the expense of prevention and low-tech approaches. > > And of course, the profit motive of having private insurance cover it all. DUH! This brings up a good point. Right now, we are paying more than we need to for the uninsured. Lack of insurance means that they wait until an emergency and then go to the emergency room for treatment. That costs more than early intervention for worse results. And who pays for it? It is added to all our insurance premiums. Jonathan On preview: **Curlcoat** , the whole age/wellness thing is a reason that to work, a single payer system cannot have an opt out feature, of if it does, you need to prevent people for opting back in just in time to receive benefits. ---
**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:** [January 26, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/45 "2009-01-26T23:29:53Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > OK, I didn’t realize that you meant that somehow the young people would be able to avoid paying whatever tax is going to subsidize this plan. Not a tax per se. A lot of the proposals include the continued paying of health insurance premiums, perhaps capped at a certain percentage of salary like in Europe. Since it isn’t a tax, people can opt out unless there are rules to the contrary I think some plans (maybe Mass.?) require employers to offer health insurance benefits or else pay into a general fund to support insurance for those not covered by employers. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/46 "2009-01-26T23:30:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > In the New Yorker this week, their medical writer, a cardiologist in Massachusetts, said that before UHC 10% of his clients couldn’t afford care. He waived fees for them, but many could not afford tests or therapy. Only 10% couldn’t afford a _cardiologist_? I’d also be curious as to what the definition of “couldn’t afford” is - couldn’t pay cash up front? Had too much debt from Christmas overspending? Didn’t feel like putting off a vacation? Had six kids? > [@](#): > > After UHC, no one had this problem. I’ve read that a big problem with it is that since the economy went into the dumper the money coming into the system from the employed is less than forecast, so the government has to make up more. Still, I think over 60% are happy with the program. You think? And what about the other 40% - tough noogies? > [@](#): > > As for the US in general, we have a very inefficient system, with each doctor having at least one insurance person to handle billing, This isn’t true - none of my doctors have a separate person in their office that just does insurance. Plus, even if we did have a socialized plan, how would billing be different? > [@](#): > > and a large and expensive insurance infrastructure to check billing and minimize costs to increase profit. Without this, costs should go down. Why do you think this? > [@](#): > > Preventative care for those who don’t feel they can afford a doctor unless they absolutely need one should bring down costs also. It depends on your definition of preventative care. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/47 "2009-01-26T23:54:02Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > But I don’t see how to stop hospitals from treating those in need anyway, for reasons of medical ethics. They don’t now, once they meet their federal quota, which many seem to do by Jan or Feb. Unless that has changed too - I haven’t need to go to an ER for many years. > [@](#): > > But under a single-payer system, _nobody’s_ paying for their own coverage, unless they want to. Everyone pays taxes, operating costs of hospitals are covered as part of the commons (much as roads are paved), & everyone gets something out. (And if you become disabled, you are already on the rolls.) Under this system, we would all get the same “plan” too, right? So I would end up paying premiums for even more things that I will never use in order to make sure the government can finance these things. Unless they have multiple levels of premiums, which the private insurance companies don’t have, I am going to be stuck paying for extremely expensive things like infertility treatments. Also, socialized medicine in other countries seems to make a point at blocking access to treatment unless it is really necessary, or the government doesn’t believe in it. Such as sterilization or any surgery that might render a woman sterile. I am past that point, age wise, but I sure don’t want to be paying taxes into a system that would essentially force women to have kids. > [@](#): > > Would you say that the rich subsidize highway access for the poor? Sort of. I’d say the rich get more use out of our highway system than the poor do. > [@](#): > > Arguably, the rich subsidize _everyone,_ Do they? Do they pay the same percentage of taxes that the middle class folks do? Taxes are killing us here - my husband makes almost six figures, our only real debt is our mortgage and we cannot live on that due to the income tax, sales tax, gas tax, whathaveyou tax. And now you want us to pay more to subsidize socialized medicine? > [@](#): > > A program for the poor—say, Medicaid—is a poor program. But a program for everyone—such as the highway system, or the Post Office before UPS & FedEx became big—has the entire country counting on it. The sacred trust of the whole country is placed in that institution; good care is not a matter of commercial interest, but of duty. I don’t think you can compare Medicaid to the highway system or the post office. (Or maybe you can, since the highway system isn’t exactly in great shape.) Look at not only Medicaid but also Medicare, Champus and the state run programs like MediCal. Also, if the plan you want includes the ability to opt out, eventually it is just going to be like Medicaid - those that can afford to will go private and the rich will not be paying into socialized medicine. > [@](#): > > The UAW had the best pensions & best health insurance in the country, except for that of the quite rich. Now their source is drying up, because they relied on private corporations in competition with other corporations (as well as with their own after-market) to fund their benefits. Now that well is drying up. GM will go under & fob its pensions off on the federal government, & the guaranteed auto worker health benefits are being cut to forestall that. Such security available to workers above the median income that the private sector provided is gone. Is gone already. That is more the fault of the union than anything else. > [@](#): > > As for the rich, they are paying more for Medicaid, Medicare, & military/veterans care than their counterparts in Europe are for UHC, & share in none of it; they buy health insurance as well, or pay full price for services. Some of this may be due to Americans getting injured more than Europeans, since we’re the world’s policeman and all. But some is due to the inefficiency of having many private insurers with different standards & forms, & those companies trying to make a profit as well. They may be paying less for UHC over there, but their other taxes are much higher than ours, right? It evens out - those with any money at all are expected to give it to people who have not earned it. ---
**Author:** ![Ocean\_Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8797f3/32.png) [@Ocean\_Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ocean_Annie)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/48 "2009-01-27T00:03:16Z")
Without government subsidies, the U.S. health care system would collapse. It is unsustainable as an inefficient, expensive corporate structure that pays out billions in executive compensation to maximize profits by denying care. The U.S. health care business needs a nanny state to maintain its existence. The question is who should benefit from public funds, the American people or corporate executives and investors. Is the government using public funds for public service or at the expense of the public ? ---
**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:** [January 27, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/49 "2009-01-27T00:30:53Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Only 10% couldn’t afford a _cardiologist_? I’d also be curious as to what the definition of “couldn’t afford” is - couldn’t pay cash up front? Had too much debt from Christmas overspending? Didn’t feel like putting off a vacation? Had six kids? I’m sorry, he’s a cancer specialist. I was thinking of my cardiologist. My bad. The 10% are clearly uninsured and unrich. Remember, some of these people still couldn’t pay for their treatment and tests after he waived his fees. No one in my family has had cancer, but my wife had a detached retina, and the operations to fix it (no overnight hospital stays) cost more than all the vacations I’ve taken in my life - and I’m 57. > [@](#): > > You think? And what about the other 40% - tough noogies? That’s a pretty big majority for such a big change. If some of them would rather have the working poor die so they won’t live under “socialized medicine” tough noogies indeed. Remember that the well known socialist Mitt Romney was governor when this was passed. > [@](#): > > This isn’t true - none of my doctors have a separate person in their office that just does insurance. Plus, even if we did have a socialized plan, how would billing be different? Are you sure? All my dentists do, as does the retina group my wife goes to. For other stuff I go to a big group, and they have a large insurance department, which deals with the insurance company screwing up. I have it good since my employer self insures, and just uses the insurance company for the paperwork, so there is less incentive for them to refuse coverage. In a single payer plan, there would be a single form or a single interface. I think our Canadian friends have testified about how simple this is up there. My daughter is in college in Germany this year and has bought the German plan (cheap enough so that trying to figure out how to get my insurance to cover her wasn’t worth it) but she hasn’t used it yet. > [@](#): > > Why do you think this? I’ve seen the overhead numbers - in fact I’ve cited them, but I don’t remember them right now. My son-in-law had a job as part of this overhead, working for an insurance company reviewing claims. > [@](#): > > It depends on your definition of preventative care. [/quote] How do you define it? My insurance, even while raising co-pays and cutting benefits, pays 100% for preventative care. Clearly they get that it saves money to do this. I gave the example of how early detection of my heart problem probably saved a ton of money. Do you doubt that finding health issues early saves money? ---
**Author:** ![bobthebuilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c67d28/32.png) [@bobthebuilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobthebuilder)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/50 "2009-01-27T00:38:10Z")
I personally believe it is unethical to use force to solve the medical insurance and or price problem. Any government system will use force. ---
**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:** [January 27, 2009, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/51 "2009-01-27T00:43:50Z")
> [@bobthebuilder](#): > > I personally believe it is unethical to use force to solve the medical insurance and or price problem. > > Any government system will use force. How about the speeding problem? The red light running problem? The forged check problem? The nonviolent scam problem? The dumping pollution into streams problem? How else are we going to get adherence to rules agreed upon by the majority? And if you can’t stand this, you have an excellent alternative - find someplace better. Being a child of the '60s, I enjoy saying “Love it or Leave it” to right wingers. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/52 "2009-01-27T01:00:50Z")
> [@bobthebuilder](#): > > I personally believe it is unethical to use force to solve the medical insurance and or price problem. > > Any government system will use force. What kind of force? :dubious: Guns and militia? Or is making any changes at all, via legislation or what have you, too much ‘force’? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/53 "2009-01-27T01:36:33Z")
The “no initiation of force” paradigm is pure Objectivism (& of course, always subjectively applied–how can one build without forcing his will on the environment?). Personally, I think I’d rather have some initiation of force if it could improve things, libertarian ethics be damned. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/54 "2009-01-27T01:38:38Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > I deplore _compulsary_ private health insurance. If someone thinks the predictability of insurance payments makes the higher average cost worthwhile, that’s their decision. But that doesn’t mean I share their opinion. > > And unlike even compulsary health insurance, a single-payer system makes no attempt to minimise the cost to other customers of providing treatment to an individual. Even if you never smoke, never drink, exercise every day, and never have so much as a cold until you die at the age of 120, you still get charged the same for a service you don’t want and never use. If you manage to live to the age of 120 and never require any healthcare, then you’ll still have friends, family, co-workers, employees, neighbours, and so on who’ll need healthcare - including the people who collect your trash or serve you your ultra-healthy food. If your sister goes bankrupt due to healthcare costs, you might end up with neices and nephews living in poverty. If your parents have the same happen to them, you might end up with them needing to live with you because they had to sell their house. Even if that doesn’t bother you, remember that, if your trash collector dies from a condition that could have been easily treated, your rubbish might not get collected - and multiply that for all such services, which you use dozens of every day, often without noticing that you’re doing so. Then their families might end up social security, paid for out of your taxes. These are all quite realistic possibilities. Unless you’re a hermit, you benefit from those around you having better healthcare. The healthiest person in the country uses the free-at-point-of-service healthcare system too, just indirectly. And unless you can guarantee that you’re going to live to 120 without any healthcare problems, you’re going to benefit from it directly too. @Brazil: then you pay a small amount on top for private healthcare, same as you pay extra for your homes and schools away from poor people. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/55 "2009-01-27T02:52:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Not a tax per se. A lot of the proposals include the continued paying of health insurance premiums, perhaps capped at a certain percentage of salary like in Europe. Since it isn’t a tax, people can opt out unless there are rules to the contrary I think some plans (maybe Mass.?) require employers to offer health insurance benefits or else pay into a general fund to support insurance for those not covered by employers. So the only difference from what we have now is the government would be running another insurance plan? No thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/56 "2009-01-27T03:05:05Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > How about the speeding problem? The red light running problem? The forged check problem? The nonviolent scam problem? The dumping pollution into streams problem? Personally, I see a difference between forcing people to not do “bad” things, and forcing people to do “good” things. Driving recklessly and thereby risking other people’s lives is “bad” in a way that failing to subsidise people’s healthcare isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/57 "2009-01-27T03:09:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’m sorry, he’s a cancer specialist. I was thinking of my cardiologist. My bad. The 10% are clearly uninsured and unrich. Remember, some of these people still couldn’t pay for their treatment and tests after he waived his fees. No one in my family has had cancer, but my wife had a detached retina, and the operations to fix it (no overnight hospital stays) cost more than all the vacations I’ve taken in my life - and I’m 57. And I’m 51. I’m not sure I get your point. Yes, health care beyond the basics is expensive. Do you think it would be (and should be) less expensive if the government ran it? > [@](#): > > That’s a pretty big majority for such a big change. If some of them would rather have the working poor die so they won’t live under “socialized medicine” tough noogies indeed. Remember that the well known socialist Mitt Romney was governor when this was passed. 60% is only 10% over the majority, and it probably represents close to the number of people that were uninsured or were paying for private insurance prior to UHC. After the shiny newness has worn off, it will be interesting to see how many still like it. As for the working poor, sorry but far far too many of them put themselves into that situation. Why is it that responsible people are required to pay for the irresponsible? > [@](#): > > Are you sure? Positive - medical and dental insurance is what I did before I couldn’t work any more. > [@](#): > > In a single payer plan, there would be a single form or a single interface. Do you really believe that the US government, author of the income tax rules, could possibly have something that simple? If you are talking about a single form for the patient, I don’t fill out forms for my visits with the insurance I have now (and haven’t for years). If you mean for the doctors and their staffs, I really have to believe that the government would generate _at least_ as much paper. > [@](#): > > How do you define it? My insurance, even while raising co-pays and cutting benefits, pays 100% for preventative care. Clearly they get that it saves money to do this. I gave the example of how early detection of my heart problem probably saved a ton of money. Do you doubt that finding health issues early saves money? Again, just calling it preventative care doesn’t tell me anything. It could be something as simple as one well visit a year all the way to paying for all of the new vacicnations they are coming out with for adults, full body scans, annual mammos, etc. Also, simply because an insurance company pays for something doesn’t mean they it because they think it will save them money. Insurance companies are in the business of selling policies and particularly in the case of group policies, they offer things that they find will influence people to sign up. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/58 "2009-01-27T03:10:25Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > @Brazil: then you pay a small amount on top for private healthcare, same as you pay extra for your homes and schools away from poor people. I highly doubt it would be a small amount, even assuming that it would be legal and practical. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/59 "2009-01-27T03:35:31Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I highly doubt it would be a small amount, even assuming that it would be legal and practical. It is all those things in the UK. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032/60 "2009-01-27T03:52:24Z")
Canadian Medicare is much more efficient than US private health care. Don’t believe me. [Read this linked article.](http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i) I’m not going to quote from it, because you should read the whole thing. (That & many other links from[this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=488817).) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/devils-advocate-saving-america-from-socialized-medicine/483032.md?page=4)