i wonder who is his ignore list

because it doesn't matter... i could be the best debater around and argue elogantly and it wouldn't make anyone on this board who disagreed with me on general grounds agree with me...

At best I could get a reasonable argument with you and Zarf, and maybe Zidi or Skoe... maybe...

a very short introduction for germany can be found here:

http://www.country-studies.com/germany/social-welfare,-health-care,-and-education.html
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/bb3Germany.php (from a british view, but suited for US viewers)

i am sorry, but i did not found any new articels about he last reforms in our public health care

as you have read, the german social welfare system is about 129 years old. it faced 2 World Wars (1914-18 and 1939-45); 1 Monarchy (1871-1918); 2 Dictatorships (1933-45 and in east germany 1945 (1949)-1989/90); 2 Democracys (1919-33 and west-germany/united germany after 1989/90: 1949-today); 2 total ruins of the economy (great inflation 1923 (1 $ was worth 4 trillion Reichsmark at the end, resulting in the loss of all private savings), destruction of germany in World War II); 2 economic systems (capitalism in west-germany, socialist in east germany 1945-89); 

in germany we have a mixed system of public and private health care. all working people must have an health insurance for which they pay about 15% of their income (new legislation in effect since 2009). people can choose between private and public insurances. (please read the articles for more)

the last 129 were full of deep changes in german history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany  ("short" informations, if you want to discuss, you must understand german history first)
the "last" developments in germany (very short):
the nazis (1933-45) and the coummists (1945/49-89/90 in east germany) created an "socialist" system of broad social welfare to satisfy the german population at home. while that was based on an regimes with no financial basis, capitalist west-germany was in the same tradition after 1949. people reminded of the "social benefits" of the nazis (benefits gained from the destruction of europe and murder on millions) and in the prosperty of the german industry after 1950 the governments were eager to spend the gains for social welfare programs (and collect the votes by the next election). it is called "social" (not socialist!) market economy. a combination of liberal capitalism with a strong welfare part. that system got a large hit with the abortion pill. the system was based on a growing or at last firm number of births. with the delince of births less workers have to spend more money for the system to keep it alive. after the unification 1990 14 million east germans (former communist east germany) entered the system. Many unemployed after the collapse of communist economy, but used to an 100% welfare system from birth to tomb. these were voters now and the government had to suite their needs. that was the second impact, because former east germany has to be subsidized with trillions of euros in the past 20 years, to create a modern economy and social system.

Enough "shocking", because here are the benefits:
There are 82 million germans = 82 million potential patients, and hundreds of billions euros from the working people. in combination a gigantic market, creating thousands of companys, jobs and economic growth (even in the actual crisis). a self running system which always works, because people always become sick someday. so people are eager to save for that time. the invested insurance money is not locked but instead always working, generating the system every day. got cancer in the US? have a nice death! in germany, people get treatment and a second chance in life. sickness has lost its problems, because you can rely on the health care system. if you want a better treatment, you can buy it if you want. if you are self-employed, you do not need an insurance and save for your own, but on risk that your savings may get lost in an financial crisis.

in my opinion the main diffrence between germany and the US is the tradition of society. germany faced much more periods which needed/provided massive social welfare from the governments and we are used to it. of course we are not always happy with the costs, but people accept it as necessary for the german stability of the society. germans trust in a firm and secure society, "social" (not socialist!) economy, tradition and social welfare. we distrust the "nation" and all its symbols like the military or wars. the US spends hundreds of billions for weapons and wars. symbols of a stong nation. germans prefer humanity instead of brute force, because force didn't work in the first half of the past 129 years (World War I+II) and we learned that it is better to have "friends" to wage our wars for us.

I'm not going to argue the pros and cons. I just think it's interesting that you call it 'socialised' health care. Yet its the type of health care that most (all?) developed countires except the USA have. Does this mean that every country except the USA is socialist?

I like Firewings post, but I will give this a day more for more entries. Very well written Firewing, you are being a credit to this forum, unlike some others.

I can't wait to wait for inferior healthcare. I've got a tingling feeling running up my leg.

You should totally keep your pregnancy. Nordicia needs more numbers!

sigh only one good response

I can never be bothered making long thought out posts on this forum because most arguments are circular and in most cases I just don't care about convincing people of my views, especially people who I will never meet. I'm also just not that good at articulating my thoughts . As a result, this post will probably not satisfy Flint's desire for a decent debate but I would hope to outline my views.

State funded health care is important because it is a sad fact of life that some people just cannot afford private health insurance or to pay for medical bills on an ad hoc basis. In my eyes it is pretty barbaric enough to just not treat people because they cannot afford it. It is also backwards to make poor households shell out more than they can really afford and therefore scrimp in other areas (university fees? books? heating?) just compounds social class boundaries and makes social mobility more difficult, which in the end makes the concept of a meritocratic society unobtainable. The perfect solution is to take money from those who can afford it and use it to pay for treatment for those who need it. From each according to means, to each according to need.

In the UK the NHS is by no means perfect but it does the best it can to offer the best level of care it can to everybody regardless of social standing or wealth. There is a free market private health sector in the UK so anyone who wants to pay for private health care is perfectly entitled to do so, but the vast majority of people don't. People love to moan about the NHS, and like I said it is not perfect, but the lack of uptake of private health care is a glowing endorsement that the people of the UK know they get a good deal out of it and I would refute any claim that NHS medical care is inferior to the private sector in the UK. The NHS is riddled by bad press but that is just because people love to moan and bad news/inept government is what sells newspapers best.

What are these "dozen nuclear weapons" Flint? Please let them come in concise posts!

My first argument:

This is a simple one, designed to be easily understood, easily talked about, and just should be considered a warm-up argument.

In the United States Socialized Health Care would mean government run and paid healthcare. This has a flaw in that the current administration is run by a lawyer who supports law suits at all costs. This means people will sue the hospitals for the trivial stuff they currently sue to the health care industry for, and instead of conventional insurance covering the lawsuits, fee's increasing, and less doctors willing to do the work, the Government will assume the costs and liabilities. The government will have to choose one of three routes, limit the lawsuits (Not going to happen under Obama), have the doctors examined under an electron microscope per lawsuit (They would riot, as it stands the number of general practitioners is shrinking, as is other fields, due to the lawsuits), or to pay the costs of the lawsuits that succeed.

This means that any health care program will be burdened, in the United States, by an increasing cost of lawsuits for petty things. A current example is the number of women who sue for pain while delivering a baby. Astonishingly a large number of these lawsuits succeed. Any government control would therefore result in a dramatic increase in cost over that of just paying the basic medical costs.

Two main benefits of a Government Presence in the Healthcare Sector:

1. Economies of Scale. For example countries like Taiwan only spend around 6% of GDP on healthcare and this is for total cover for every citizen. Japan I believe spends 8%. In comparison the U.S spends 15% of GDP on healthcare with nowhere near total cover.

2. Carer Conflict of Interest
You avoid some of the conflict of interest problems which so often arises with private healthcare systems whereby there is a profit incentive to refer patients for expensive $400-500K invasive surgery procedures they didn't need for problems which could have been more easily fixed (see Tenet Healthcare and the Dr Moon controversy). This can include collusion with pharmaceutical companies to dump poorly-researched drugs with more side effects than benefits on patients again because there is a profit incentive to do so and more hospitals in the US are being bought over by big pharma precisely because this is such a lucrative model.

I lean towards a freer market for most things but I'm not insane enough to believe that an absolutely free market will deliver optimal results for something like healthcare where there are so many human psychology issues involved. Free-market ideologues may demur but then most of them inhabit a different reality from the rest of us.