How would Socalized Healthcare work in America? -

First off, I am aware that in the Scandanavian Countries they have successful quot;free health carequot;. But, in Sweden some residents pay 75% of their hard-earned money to the government. And the are soppoused to be a quot;democracy.quot; They also have small populations, around 4 million. In Chicago alone, there is over 10 million. How could America afford this? Taxes are to high anyway!|::::|It would not work in the US. There would be no one going to medical school if they couldn t make the money they make now. The AMA lobby would prevent this from happening. Ask a Canadian how long it takes to get a much needed MRI?|::::|Nobody is considering socialized health care in the US. Socialized healthcare would be where all providers were government employees and all facilities were owned by the government. What you mean is single payer, like where medicare would process all claims for everybody and pay them with a fraction of the overhead that insurance companies charge, just as they do now under their own program. The portion of our health care costs attributable to insurance companies is 31%. That s wasted money, enough to pay for health care for every American. There would be no increase in taxes. Do you have any idea how many critical surgeries, treatments, and drugs have to be denied in order for an insurance executive to get a $20,000,000 bonus? People should not be in the position where they make money by withholding treatment that people will die without.|::::|UK here, firstly it has to be paid for. We have a deduction taken from our earnings automatically, the more you earn the higher you pay. The system, though not perfect, worked well for years. However, increased bureaucracy, government interference, mass immigration, and the quot;behind closed doorsquot; sell off of ancillary services has brought the system to it s knees. Tax per se is a different issue, we pay our taxes and then our quot;National Insurancequot; which pays for our health care. We pay for our prescriptions, the charge for which is often higher than quot;over the counterquot;. Different areas of the country are better at looking after patients than others, every area has it s own quot;trustquot; (more bureaucracy) who prioritise where the money will be spent. Huge amounts are spent on these useless organisations and fat cat managers. i could go on but you get the picture. Learn from our mistakes, but healthcare should not be only for the rich, that is just not civilised.|::::|Canada does it very nicely, and their taxes are higher than ours, but only for the richest citizens. Everyone else pays what we pay, or less. Oh, and Sweden has tax rates in the 30 s. No one pays 75% tax http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europ... Besides, the idea of quot;there are more people, so it will cost morequot; is erronious, becuase there are also more people to pay for ti!|::::|The same way it works in Canada, France, amp; England. but a 75% tax rate would be crazy amp; not worth it. I wonder how much of that 75% tax rate goes to the health care system.|::::|It wouldn t. There is a difference between universal healthcare and socialized health care.|::::|It has to work better than what is available here at the present time.|::::|Better than no health care.|::::|frankly, I think it would work badly. Look at Britain and Canada