"Romney Praises Israel's Socialized Health Care System"

#1
Velo Vol

Velo Vol

Internets Expert
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
36,854
Likes
17,290
#1
Did you know that Israelis have the fourth longest life expectancy in the world? As Romney notes, their single-payer system is also much cheaper than America's:

“Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? eight percent," Romney told donors at a fundraiser at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, speaking of a health care system that is compulsory for Israelis and funded by the government. "You spend eight percent of GDP on health care. You're a pretty healthy nation. We spend 18% of our GDP on health care. Ten percentage points more. That gap, that 10 percent cost, compare that with the size of our military — our military which is four percent — four percent. Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways — not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to find and manage our health care costs."
Click to expand...

Hmm, I wonder where we might find a model for a more efficient system?
 
#5
#5
In fairness, he didn't specifically praise single payer. Just the factual statistics of the healthcare system there.
 
#7
#7
PKT_VOL said:
In fairness, he didn't specifically praise single payer. Just the factual statistics of the healthcare system there.
Click to expand...

He's reiterating the same argument Obama made about what the total cost of HC is as a percentage of GDP. Exact same unprincipled* argument.

*Doesn't address what would be an appropriate percentage and why. Doesn't offer an appropriate solution to lower that number.
 
#8
#8
Don't worry. Today is only Monday.

Tomorrow he will be for socialized medicine nationally.

Wednesday he will be against it, entirely.

Thursday he will be for it at the state level.

Friday he will be against it in the morning, then for it in the afternoon.
 
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
Don't worry. Today is only Monday.

Tomorrow he will be for socialized medicine nationally.

Wednesday he will be against it, entirely.

Thursday he will be for it at the state level.

Friday he will be against it in the morning, then for it in the afternoon.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile Obama will be accepting peace prizes while drone bombing the **** out of children. See how mainstream establishment politics work?
 
#10
#10
Gramps said:
:unsure:


Not praise - just facts ..... hmmm
Click to expand...

Again, general facts about the health of their people and how much they spend per GDP. He didn't praise or endorse their system. There are a lot of factors that play into those two numbers, single payer is not nessicarily one of them.
 
#11
#11
n_huffhines said:
He's reiterating the same argument Obama made about what the total cost of HC is as a percentage of GDP. Exact same unprincipled* argument.
Click to expand...

This weak. Everybody wants to see the cost of healthcare decrease.

n_huffhines said:
*Doesn't address what would be an appropriate percentage and why. Doesn't offer an appropriate solution to lower that number.
Click to expand...

This is fair. He has been non-specfic just like Obama and every other politician in Washington on exactly how they are going to "fix" the various problems our country faces.
 
#12
#12
PKT_VOL said:
Again, general facts about the health of their people and how much they spend per GDP. He didn't praise or endorse their system. There are a lot of factors that play into those two numbers, single payer is not nessicarily one of them.
Click to expand...



It sounded like praise to me.

I guess it depends on what your definition of what "praise" is.
 
#13
#13
Gramps said:
It sounded like praise to me.

I guess it depends on what your definition of what "praise" is.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to say he wasn't praising the overall health and economics of health for Isreal, I am just saying that he did not praise the single payer provision of Isreal's healthcare.

Whether he believes single player is ideal in his heart of hearts, I dunno. It's anybody's guess. However, the OP is just running with a story that is just not there.
 
#14
#14
any system that doesn't keep the gov't bureaucracy from growing into the HC arena is destined to be an utter failure.
 
#15
#15
BigPapaVol said:
any system that doesn't keep the gov't bureaucracy from growing into the HC arena is destined to be an utter failure.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between the government bureaucracy getting involved in "health care" and it getting involved in health care finance. A big difference, in fact, but most people don't bother to see the distinction.

Granted, controlling the manner of reimbursement would give government some control over delivery, in terms of timing. but the whole "death panels" thing was, and still is, just stupid fear mongering.

Government already manages financing for Medicare, for example, and that costs approximately 1.3 %. Privater insurance overhead, however, is conservatively estimated at 11-12 percent (a bit lower for larger employee pools, and higher for the smaller employers).
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
Don't worry. Today is only Monday.

Tomorrow he will be for socialized medicine nationally.

Wednesday he will be against it, entirely.

Thursday he will be for it at the state level.

Friday he will be against it in the morning, then for it in the afternoon.
Click to expand...

Socialized healthcare can be very different from country to country. Not even most who voted for the US version understands what that means yet compared to other countries. I find it laughable it was passed with no idea on how to implement, costs, and information to those who it effects the most. Just the "idea" of it got people excited but no idea how to pay for it, implement and control it so it can work and not die under it's own weight which I believe it will in the US just because there is no clear plan.

So in short, you can praise one country's system while criticizing another because they ain't all equal.
 
#17
#17
hohenfelsvol said:
Socialized healthcare can be very different from country to country. Not even most who voted for the US version understands what that means yet compared to other countries. I find it laughable it was passed with no idea on how to implement, costs, and information to those who it effects the most. Just the "idea" of it got people excited but no idea how to pay for it, implement and control it so it can work and not die under it's own weight which I believe it will in the US just because there is no clear plan.

So in short, you can praise one country's system while criticizing another because they ain't all equal.
Click to expand...



Actually, I agree with that 100 percent.

The way I see it, we will just have a slow migration of more and more people to Medicare. I give it 20-25 years before basically everyone is covered.
 
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
There is a difference between the government bureaucracy getting involved in "health care" and it getting involved in health care finance. A big difference, in fact, but most people don't bother to see the distinction.

Granted, controlling the manner of reimbursement would give government some control over delivery, in terms of timing. but the whole "death panels" thing was, and still is, just stupid fear mongering.

Government already manages financing for Medicare, for example, and that costs approximately 1.3 %. Privater insurance overhead, however, is conservatively estimated at 11-12 percent (a bit lower for larger employee pools, and higher for the smaller employers).
Click to expand...
I was talking about incremental growth. I suspect we already spend as much as any country in the world on governmental HC intervention and we are the least federalized program.

The idea that this program would come to fruition and we'll only have intervention in the finance side is absurd. Financing dictates delivery and decisions.
 
#19
#19
BigPapaVol said:
I was talking about incremental growth. I suspect we already spend as much as any country in the world on governmental HC intervention and we are the least federalized program.

The idea that this program would come to fruition and we'll only have intervention in the finance side is absurd. Financing dictates delivery and decisions.
Click to expand...


The thing that is so odd about the incremental approach -- which I agree is what's going on by the way -- is that there is always tremendous popular support for it. Not just wherever it is, but expansion, too.
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
The thing that is so odd about the incremental approach -- which I agree is what's going on by the way -- is that there is always tremendous popular support for it. Not just wherever it is, but expansion, too.
Click to expand...

that's because people naturally like getting something for nothing

People like you will embrace that laziness despite knowing that nothing provided by the government is "free".
 
#21
#21
MG1968 said:
that's because people naturally like getting something for nothing

People like you will embrace that laziness despite knowing that nothing provided by the government is "free".
Click to expand...

what people struggle to realize is that it's not only anything but free, it's the most expensive administration system in the history of human civilization. The US government has been ruined by unaccountability and largesse.
 
#22
#22
MG1968 said:
that's because people naturally like getting something for nothing

People like you will embrace that laziness despite knowing that nothing provided by the government is "free".
Click to expand...


Is it that the people that want the benefit haven't paid into the system, or that the system is so intentionally inefficient that what was paid cannot keep pace with the increase in cost?

I submit both.

And we need to fix both.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top