Help me understand "Socialized Medicine"

[ChooseLiberty]

All the conservatard talk show hosts must have gotten "socialized medicine" as their talking point from conservatard HQ this week.

They never define "socialized medicine", but are dead set against it, whatever it is.

From listening to them I get the impression that if there's medicine is socialized all the private practice doctors would go away. Somehow I don't think this is true.

What happens in England and Canada which they always hold up as examples of people dying in the streets because of socialized medicine. Are private doctors outlawed? Why?

I'm not totally against socialized medicine because the AMA or some prestigious group did a study a few years ago and found socialized medicine would actually be cheaper and more efficient overall since the insurance industry bureaucracy is huge and add little value and people that have insurance are paying for the uninsured anyway. Besides are who is going pass a law that says emergency rooms don't have to treat matters of life and death insurance or not? No one.

What say you?

[fsk]

The reason medical care is expensive is that the AMA artificially restricts the supply of doctors. The number of slots in medical schools is kept carefully restricted.

Government licensing requirements for doctors drive up the cost of medical care.

Unless you stop restricting the supply of doctors, addressing price or demand is pointless.

[Omnis]

There's the mandatory socialized medicine that John Edwards wants, and then there is "voluntary" socialized medicine. I think the words voluntary and socialism don't belong together, lol.

Socialized medicine might be cheaper than our current corporatist medicine, but I think the quality of service will decline. Treatment will turn into a run-around show much like how crap public schools operate (we don't handle that, you have to go here... we don't do that, you have to go there... ).

What the politicians don't want to put on the table (because they want to protect either the special interests or the bureaucrats) is the free-market system, which I think will be most beneficial, financially and qualitatively, to all.

[angelatc]

I have a few issues with socialized medicine. Nothing the government gets involved with ever makes it cheaper. If the AMA said making health care public would reduce the cost, they're lying because they stand to gain. It's that simple. Any economics 101 class will tell you that if you have a single supplier, there's no incentive to cut costs. The US used to lead the world in medical advances, but once the government started paying via Medicare and MedicAid, that stopped. Those arguments are not really inclusive of the point I want to make though.

The thoughts that really makes me anti- government are the same thoughts that make me anti-government health care. Right now, our health care is allegedly rationed based on who can afford it. When the government takes it over, it will be rationed according to who the government thinks deserves it. These opinions are based on statements regarding allocations I've heard from proponents of national health care.

For example, every year or so, a random long term coma patient will awaken. Head trauma doctors love to study these cases, for obvious reasons. If these patients were on the public dime, how many resources do you think the givernment would devote to them?

Look at treatments of terminal diseases in the elderly. Talk long enough to a proponent of national health care, and you'll find that they think that some diseases shouldn't be treated in the elderly. Why waste resources on old people, when young people *need* those resources more? If you're not a worker bee, then your value in a socialist society is nil.

Right now health care is allegedly allocated based on an ability to pay. At least I get some choice in that. I can choose to accept jobs that offer insurance, or I can choose to earn enough money to afford my own treatments. When the government takes over, my choices disappear.

I also worry about the FDA involvement. Suppose I have a chronic condition, and a drug company develops a drug that will relieve (but not cure) my symproms, but it will be a very expensive drug. In the provate market, I can sue my insurance company to require them to pay for the drug after the FDA approves it. If the government takes over, they'll simply prohibit the FDA from approving it, and my suffering will continue.

Will other people get better treatment because they have better genes? With a national health database, social engineering is very probable.

It breaks my heart to see my freedoms disappearing one by one.

[AnotherAmerican]

By definition, "socialized" health care would involve state-owned hospitals paying state-employee doctors. At the municipal level, this exists already in many places: County hospitals and Fire Dep't. EMTs are a few popular examples. Any state or locality in the country is already free to provide medical services, and to administer their programs as they determine. The Federal government is already free to "subsidize" state and local efforts by lowering taxes if it wants to "help."

What's really being bandied about is insurance subsidies, either in the form of a government-administered plan that eliminates private insurers in favor of a to-be-determined social-welfare program ("socialized" insurance), or by having government mandate the purchase of a for-profit private plan, subsidized by a to-be-determined social-welfare program ("fascistized" insurance?).

Under the "single payer" plans, private insurance middlemen are allegedly eliminated, so private hospitals compete to see how much they can overcharge for how little service, by hiding profit in inflated administration and supply costs until they've consumed 100% of available tax revenue. Private insurers will sell "better" private policies to upcharge those who can afford to pay, leaving the underfunded-by-design public system to provide crappy baseline service to the net money-losers, always in need of more tax money.

The competing "Massachusetts Plan" is to requires everyone to buy a private, for-profit, "minimum-coverage" policy, with the state subsidizing those who cannot afford to. This will allow insurance to compete to see how much they can overcharge for how little service, by hiding profit in inflated administration and supply costs, until they've consumed 100% of available tax revenue. Private insurers will sell "better" private policies to upcharge those who can afford to pay, leaving the underfunded-by-design "minimum policy" system to provide crappy baseline service to the net money-losers, always in need of more tax money.

Any national plan currently proposed is one of the above two, and are designed to do the same thing: Socialize the losses, privatize the profits, and - most importantly - confiscate the profits from citizens before they can spend it on anything else.

[cjhowe]

Here is Ronald Reagan's reply to why socialized medicine is bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Ron Paul is spot on in regards to health care in America. We've been presented with a false choice (as we often are) between corporate medicine and socialized medicine. The solution to healthcare in America, as it is to most issues, is the free market. Remove the barriers that the government puts on the healthcare market and you will have a better informed customer able to decide what medical services he wants for himself at MUCH lower costs and MUCH higher quality. There is no innovation in patient services any more because every step of healthcare has a formulary to follow. It is too costly and there is no opportunity for greater returns by blazing a new trail.

Remove the prescription requirement for drugs and prices will plummet. Remove accreditation requirements and prices will plummet. Get the AMA out of the occupation code and prices will plummet. All of the letters by someone's name or on someone's door should be marketing tools, not tickets to play the game.

[ChooseLiberty]

I don't have a problem with a perfect free market for medicine where the number of doctors increase and the prices stabilize at lower prices, but I don't think it's ever going to happen IRL.

Will people in a life and death situation be turned away from emergency rooms under free market medicine? Personally, I don't want to see poor people dying on the sidewalk because somebody robbed and stabbed them and they get turned away from medical care. Does anyone really want to see that?

BTW - there are plenty of smart doctors all over the world waiting to get into the US to practice medicine. I know some. A lot of them are better than the ones we have already. Maybe there's a bottleneck somewhere - are the Medical professions lobbying against immigration (legal)? (Luckily we have plenty of illegal leaf blowers and have all the leaves quickly blown from the sidewalk into the street.)

[noxagol]

I don't have a problem with a perfect free market for medicine where the number of doctors increase and the prices stabilize at lower prices, but I don't think it's ever going to happen IRL.

Will people in a life and death situation be turned away from emergency rooms under free market medicine? Personally, I don't want to see poor people dying on the sidewalk because somebody robbed and stabbed them and they get turned away from medical care. Does anyone really want to see that?

BTW - there are plenty of smart doctors all over the world waiting to get into the US to practice medicine. I know some. A lot of them are better than the ones we have already. Maybe there's a bottleneck somewhere - are the Medical professions lobbying against immigration (legal)? (Luckily we have plenty of illegal leaf blowers and have all the leaves quickly blown from the sidewalk into the street.)

Just ask Ron Paul. He worked as an ER doctor in Texas for a bit. He says NO ONE was EVER turned away because of their inability to pay. He would do it at reduced prices or for free if necessary.

[Kregener]

Look no further than Canada for your answer.

Why would an American want "socialized" anything?

[noxagol]

Look no further than Canada for your answer.

Why would an American want "socialized" anything?

Please extrapolate your explanation there if you don't mind. How does Canadian medicine suck?

[MsDoodahs]

From listening to them I get the impression that if there's medicine is socialized all the private practice doctors would go away. Somehow I don't think this is true.

If my understanding is correct, in Canada, it was illegal for a doctor to operate a private practice up until the lawsuit a few years ago which changed their law. It was a suit filed by a gentleman who needed joint replacement surgery and his wait time was (iirc) in excess of two years. I can't recall if it was a hip or a knee, it was one of the two. He won his lawsuit and as a result, there are now SOME practices which are operating outside the Canadian socialized system.

I have a friend who recently told me about an influx of Canadian doctors and nurses into her facility here in the States. They are fed up with the conditions in Canada's system. It is my understanding that Canada has a cap on the amount a physician may earn each year.


What happens in England and Canada which they always hold up as examples of people dying in the streets because of socialized medicine. Are private doctors outlawed? Why?

Not dying in the streets but certainly suffering from dramatically long wait times for various procedures. Yes, up until that lawsuit a few years ago, private physicians were outlawed.

If you are asking WHY private docs were outlawed, this is my understanding of the basic idea behind it: the Canadians want a system where no one gets better care than anyone else - all people must be equal in the care they receive. By outlawing private docs and forcing all docs to work within the socialized system, they sought to eliminate the ability of those individuals with means (aka rich SOBs)from being able to buy better care than the individual without means (aka poor SOBs). In practice, those with means to pay a higher rate and get better care from a private physician but without the means to leave the country for better care were at the mercy of the socialized system. Those with the means to leave the country to obtain better care continued to do so. So even though their goal was "equal care for all," their system did not provide any such thing. Just as gov't education for all results in the dumbing down of all students, gov't healthcare for all results in lesser quality care for everyone.



I'm not totally against socialized medicine because the AMA or some prestigious group did a study a few years ago and found socialized medicine would actually be cheaper and more efficient overall since the insurance industry bureaucracy is huge and add little value and people that have insurance are paying for the uninsured anyway. Besides are who is going pass a law that says emergency rooms don't have to treat matters of life and death insurance or not? No one.

What say you?

There was a recent report - within the last six months - that revealed the horrible debt France is suffering because of their socialized healthcare system. I believe it exceeds 3 billion. The report detailed several other nations - all with the same problem - huge deficits because of their socialized medicine systems. In fact, it's my understanding that the nations which have had socialized systems are beginning to consider changing to a free(r) market system because they simply cannot afford to continue their current socialized systemts. I think I saw that report on Bloomberg News.

The claims that socialized systems are cheaper and more efficient are completely invalid.

[LibertyBelle]

I'm a physical therapist, don't listen to the AMA. They are not to be trusted. Do not look to them as the 'authority'. In fact, don't look to doctors as the 'authority' on your health either. Been there, done that.....big mistake.

A couple of people have already brought up good descriptions of the horrible aspects of socialized medicine. Medicare is socialized medicine, people forget about this. One big reason for the increase in health care costs has to do with Medicare (gov't involvement and control). The restrictions on the number of doctors admitted to medical schools is another. The expense of malpractice insurance another, thanks to way too many sue happy people and lawyers. The intertwining of Big Pharma with medical schools, the gov't, and the insurance companies another.

I could write a book about our current health care system and how it would get worse with universal health care. In Toronto, tons of hospitals have had to close. Doctors and nurses and coming over the border to work. Their salaries are set, excellency is not rewarded. Because the gov't controls health care, they control your treatment when it should be decided by you and your doctor. People have to wait for months on end to start cancer treatments. The fact that the Canadian gov't had outlawed private practices shows they do not like competition.

Gov't control of health care always causes dependency, lowers standards, rewards mediocracy, lowers salaries, and taxes and bankrupts a country. Health care in America in general is good for acute illnesses and emergency surgeries, but for chronic problems overall it stinks! However, the answer is NOT socialized medicine. The answer is reversing Medicare, reversing the fascist Big Pharma influence and money dumping on our gov't/med schools/insurance companies, revamping the corrupt FDA, getting rid of the stranglehold the AMA has on many things, bringing true competition back to the health care industry....AMA comes into this again, getting back to teaching doctors to think for themselves instead of being cattle out of the medical school chutes, etc. Lots more to get where we need to be.

The free market creates true competition, rewards excellency, and lowers costs because of the competition! Gov't control does the opposite. With socialized medicine, with set salaries and all that effin' red tape and bureacracy, we will lose the best of the best. This is already happening because of Medicare. No thanks! Small gov't and the free market is the answer. Also, we are already paying around 50% of our wages to taxes, guess what would happen with universal health care! It is not my responsibility to pay for someone else's health care, nor is it their responsibility to pay for my shelter and clothing. If I want to volunteer to help somebody with their health bills, I can do that, but should not be forced to do so. The last thing I want to do also is be forced to pay for health care for individuals who don't take care of themselves. I have to pay for their poor health habits with socialized medicine. No thanks!

[noxagol]

Socialism is bad for two reasons.

1) It creates a government monopoly. Monopolies are bad, government monopolies are even worse. Just look at public schools.

2) When everyone is set in pay it creates no incentive to do a good job. If I am going to get 100k a year no matter what, why bust my ass?

[Kregener]

Ask all the Canadian nurses working in America why socialized medicine is bad.

[ThePieSwindler]

guys theres absolutely nothing wrong with socialized medicine. We should have to pay for the bad health decisions poor people make (highest obesity rate among American demographics) because we are wealthier and the poor therefore are more important from a morally self-righteous standpoint. Take acre of the poor first, who cares about the rest of society amirite? It hurts the feelings of the poor people when the rich greedy money hoarding bastards get better care, so we need to bring them down tot he level of the poor. Forget about economic mobility and the principles America was founded upn of everyone man having the freedom to move up, no, lets just create a system that brings everyone down the the level of the poor. But at the same time lets not address the real problems afflicting the poor such as inflation and the income tax and corporate welfare/fascism and stuff, because then there would not be as many poor people and thus we would not have as large a voter base to draw from. Same with the black peopl we need to keep them in the mentality that the state owes them and they need the states help and that they as black people who were enslaved 140 years ago are entitiled to it etc just like the poor people. And the gay people need their rights as well btu anyways we need to make sure society is tailored to the poor, btu we need to keep it that way, we have no need for a system that is utilitarian and fair for all, only a system that is "fair" and for the "common man" cuse liek i said we need votes amirite?

Signed,
~A democrat

[jb4ronpaul]

Individual charity always increases under freedom and decreases under socialism. I have seen a study that shows this, but it is common sense. Under socialism you grow the "that's someone elses job to take care of him" attitude. Individual free Americans do a much better job of taking care of lesser fortunate people than a socialist welfare state. The ultimate motivation of a government welfare state is not to actually help people, but to make them more dependent, to need you more. Individual charitable Americans want to actually help people, and that is why Dr. Paul says nobody was ever turned away from a hospital until the government go involved. Healthcare used to be affordable. More freedom always works no matter what issue you are dealing with, more corporatism or socialism always hurts no matter what issue you are dealing with.

[constituent]

Medicine has to turn its back from chemistry, and move toward biology, so does mankind.

[ChooseLiberty]

(I should probably add at this point that IMO the socialized medicine issue, like gay marriage and all the other bizarre issues is a canard meant to distract the sheeple from the real issues like preemptive war, the encroaching police state and invasion.)


3 Billion, eh? Iraq War under George "the retarded" Bush - $500 Billion and counting (that we know of, probably will end up being more like $1 Trillion). Not counting increase military subsidies to Israel.

Do you have any idea how much illegal aliens cost hospitals across the Southwest (the ones that are still open that is)? IIRC it's at least $1 billion/year in Texas alone.



There was a recent report - within the last six months - that revealed the horrible debt France is suffering because of their socialized healthcare system. I believe it exceeds 3 billion.

[ChooseLiberty]

Hundreds of hospitals across the US have closed due to illegal aliens. Somehow Toronto's situation doesn't seem so bad.




I could write a book about our current health care system and how it would get worse with universal health care. In Toronto, tons of hospitals have had to close. Doctors and nurses and coming over the border to work. Their salaries are set, excellency is not rewarded. Because the gov't controls health care, they control your treatment when it should be decided by you and your doctor. People have to wait for months on end to start cancer treatments. The fact that the Canadian gov't had outlawed private practices shows they do not like competition.

[ChooseLiberty]

Ok I see there's a lot of theoretical free market dogmaticism about socialized medicine out there. I'm going for pragmatism. Are there any current examples of a free market medical system working in a first world country (the US still qualifies for now at least)?

So we have some anecdotal evidence about the bad bad socialized medicine. People seem to have some complaints about Canada's system, but they seem to be maybe upper middle class that could afford private doctors but couldn't afford to drive to the US. Or maybe they had to wait for months to get a hangnail removed. Is that right? :D

On the other hand we have the current system with no prices disclosed, administered by third parties, where the hospitals are closing, the doctors are quitting practice, etc. etc.

The conservatards always use Canada as an example, but they never use, say, Switzerland or Sweden or Germany or Japan or Australia or New Zealand, etc. etc. In fact, I'd much rather go to a Swiss hospital under their system than even an American hospital with all it's crap load off bureaucrats and constant stream of mistakes by nurses and doctors.

Ever wonder why? I know people in Australia are very healthy except for vegemite. LOL.

[constituent]

my issue w/ gov't run healthcare is what would happen in the case of the ministry of health developing, testing, and distributing the next thalidamide. do you think we'd be able to sue the gov't? probably not. and if so, you wouldn't win.

people would be warning for years and years and the media would ignore the reports. you would complain to your doctor but they would say it was perfectly safe... you'd give it to your children.

this can happen w/ the system we have now and does (vioxx, etc.), but there is some degree of recourse. the big thing is that government needs to get the hell out of people's business. what one person wants to use as a remedy or treatment is their business. now, if they want to fund a non-profit entity that researches the efficacy of treatments and their safety that people could turn to for advice...

but otherwise, the gov't and insurance companies are the problem. more of either will solve nothing [.]

[noxagol]

No there is no 1st world country with free-market health care, not even us. IT IS NOT FREE MARKET. It is regulated by the government in some really bad ways, I do not know which.

Competition is best and government ruins competition.

[synapz]

I would argue that Canada's medical system does more for the average and poor joe than the American system. I would argue that the early stages of socialized systems are better for the average and poor joe than corporatism (current American Medical System).

I would also argue that a true free market system would beat the hell out of both of them.

[sickmint79]

please critique the following blog i wrote...

http://www.timeofdeceit.com/?p=8

[save the constitution]

See the movie Sicko to get an idea of what it's like.
Those oponents you see on tv are just lobbyists for the health care and insurance industries cause they never guve you real resons just crap.

[Broadlighter]

for free-market health care because there are no true free-market economies in the first world. If we can look to the past, the U.S. had more of a free-market health-care system that worked quite well. That happened before medicare and medicaid. The truth about Michael Moore's Sicko portrayal of free-market health care is that Michael Moore wouldn't know a free-market if it walked up and bit him in the ass.

If you are looking for a pragmatic solution, the problem with pragmatism is that it is always practical for someone, but not always everyone. It's a confusion of semantics because for many the word 'pragmatism' means how things actually get done, but more often than not, it only benefits a few and maybe enough people for that pragmatic solution to perpetuate itself. The Federal Reserve has given us a 'pragmatic' monetary system. Adjusting the inflation rate to accelerate or slow down the economy is a a very practical thing to do. Does that make it right? Try asking someone who lived through the Great Depression.

Socialized anything is a principal problem, although it can be a practical way to help people get health care. Over time, principals will win out over pragmatism. People will do whatever they need to do to survive and that usually means reverting to free-market activity. An example of this would be a person going to a specialist or alternative health practitioner and paying him under the table instead of filling out forms and waiting for weeks to see his government issued physician just to treat a cold. The free-market in principal is the most practical (read pragmatic) way to do things. Dependence on government tends to obscure that fact of life because people get lulled into believing that that is the way things get done.

[fsk]

If we can look to the past, the U.S. had more of a free-market health-care system that worked quite well. That happened before medicare and medicaid.


Correction: The US had a free market health-care system that worked before the government got involved in licensing doctors and restricting the supply of doctors.

[sickmint79]

i was wondering how good it was in the past before; ie. wasn't there some issue going on that caused the creation of HMOs to try and help in the fist place?

[angelatc]

http://www.afcm.org/historyofhmos.html - sums it up nicely. HMOs were a bipartisian solution.

[DocGrimes]

I have to say that socialized medicine is not the answer. In the original post the point was raised about becoming socialized med being more efficient over our current system.

What this really points out is just how messed up our current heavily regulated system has become. We do not have a free market for healthcare by any means. As pointed out by others you have professions that have lobbied for laws that limit competition.

Then we have the added complications of insurance companies (and their regulatory efforts) and even government subsidies.

As a doctor myself I find that there are many factors that have went into the very overpriced nature of 'health care' in our country. Not the least of which is that when clients are not paying the bills then doctors are able to raise (pad) prices. Since it isn't coming directly out of their pockets most patients don't care. Then insurance companies which are in the money making industry and not really in the business of helping folks stay healthy must make policy changes to cut costs ie cut benifits, raise premiums, raise deductibles and copays, ect. So we end up with a system of doctors and insurance companies working around pricing to take advantage of the other, not to mention all the administrative costs associated with this finagling on both sides.

Sorry, bit of a ramble there but it is to illustrate that the problem we are facing now is that we are given the option to continue with this heavily regulated and failing system we currently have or to start a form of socialized care. Both are loosing propositions.

What we really need is to deregulate care. If we doctor's had more competition, even non-licensed, it would go a long way to cut costs. Market forces can fix this though it would not be painless, but then none of our choices are painless.

We are already steadily and strongly stepping towards a nationalized healthcare, especially with the HIPPA laws (which actually hurt your privacy and complicate the ability to give care).

Throwing money at this issue will not fix it. Throwing competition into the mix and deregulating would apply some serious market forces.

[fletcher]

Have I stepped into bizarro world? People arguing for much more government control and more taxes. Calling people that believe in the Constitution conservatards and telling others ta watch socialist propaganda like Sicko. What is going on here?

[ChooseLiberty]

It's called a discussion. It's what happens with free speech. Maybe you're not familiar with it.



Have I stepped into bizarro world? People arguing for much more government control and more taxes. Calling people that believe in the Constitution conservatards and telling others ta watch socialist propaganda like Sicko. What is going on here?

[Colleen]

First off, I think the term Universal Healthcare is deceptive. What it represents to me is the ultimate marriage between government and the pharmaceutical cartels. I have a very different philosophy of health which came as a result of curing myself of cancer with absolutely no help - other than diagnostic testing - from the allopathic healthcare system in America. This was my CHOICE. What I am concerned about is the overwhelming lack of information regarding varied options for acheiving and maintaining health in America.

I am concerned that a government contract biologist, Dr Hulda Clark, had her cheap clinic shut down - having found effective remedies in nature and bioelectric medicine - having a 98% cure-rate in the treatment of cancer and AIDS. She suddenly became a quack, in the eyes of the government from whose health establishment she had retired with honors. I am concerned that we are told by the selfsame government talking heads that it is for our own good that these brilliant researchers cannot provide care for the needy and the uninsured, using tecniques which cost pennies a day, because the treatments have not been approved by the FDA and the AMA. 'Oh really? You mean to tell me they have a problem with someone who chooses, either by default or necessity, an alternative treatment modality? But I thought saving money was part of the goal here?? '

I only have accident insurance. It is a wise investment for me. I do not use drugs because I have known the medicinal uses of herbs and optimal dietary rules for health as outlined in 6X Nobel Prize nominated researcher, Dr Johanna Budwig's interferon diet. The body can cure itself of anything if given the proper tools. Why do we not hear about these alternative inexpensive methods? It is a simple matter of not being told. And why are we not being told? Because big pharma has a monopoly on health information.

Michael Moore is completely missing the whole point regarding health and what it means. To me, a universal healthcare system would encompass freedom of choice of all healing modalities; not just the ones the politicians have decided are right for me. But one cannot have freedom of choice without accurate info as to what the choices are. This is what is seriously lacking in the discourse in the MSM & political realms, not to mention the medical schools which receive grant monies and kickbacks to tow the party line of big pharmas stranglehold on the whole system.

I want to see access to information on all available treatments for a disease process. The pros, cons and expenses of each one, and allow me to make an informed decision as to the one which works best for me. I would ask each one of you who truly cares about health for all to take a look at what is in store for us all in the very near future via the UN sponsored global mandate known as Codex Alimentarius.

Unless we wake up and elect someone like Ron Paul - who is very much against UN agendas which seek to classify vitamins and herbs as drugs to be licensed and controlled as any other pharmaceutical, then the whole ideal of 'universal healthcare' is well on the way of becoming just one more Orwellian universal nightmare

[Ozwest]

We have "scialised medicine" in Australia and for the most part, it works well. All consultations and medical procedures are fully covered. Costs for these services is negotiated directly between providers and the government. No middle men. The government uses its purchasing power as leverage against the drug companies to ensure favourable price outcomes. Point of sale purchases are generously subsidised by the government. Is this system perfect? No. Like anything, this system is tax payer funded. Australia has a population of 20 million probably making it easier for us to watch the money trail. Would Ron Pauls health care stategies work? Yes. Consumer driven medicine forces competition in the market place. Medical and Insurance providers would lower prices to meet the expectations of consumers. Eliminate the "cosy" relationship between government and drug companies whilst eliminating trade barriers on Pharmecuticals and prescription costs would plummet. Either system has got to be better than the one going now. My 2 cents.

[ThePieSwindler]

It's called a discussion. It's what happens with free speech. Maybe you're not familiar with it.

Yeah but conservatards was a bit much. Discussion does not mean disparaging. If you want your discussion to be taken seriously, you approach your opponents with a certain level of respect, at least enough respect to not call them some perjorative name. Sure, you have the right to do that, but it invalidates any of the validity of your discussion for most people simply by your show of immaturity. (this is in reference to the OP)

[Colleen]

Ozzwest,

Codex Alimentarius is a globalist agenda. Without regard for borders. Here are just a few examples of how it is operating there in the beautiful land down under:

Alternative Medicine Reforms in Australia, the Codex, and Pan

Dr Mercola: The Codex Conundrum and How it Affects Supplements in America

Tim Bolen: Codex Alimentarius: Big Pharma's Attempt to Subjugate Planet Earth...

The NHF: Codex Breaks its Own Rules!

The Vitamin Police Are Suiting Up
The bureaucrats know that if it were ever to come to a vote, voters in most nations will affirm their right to be left alone when it comes to vitamins. The war has therefore moved from politics to bureaucratic agreements. The war is about to escalate.

News with Views: KISS YOUR VITAMINS GOODBYE!

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/05/09/australia_new_zealand_codex_alimentarius_and_trans tasman_harmonization.htm

[Ozwest]

Colleen, Yes there is disscussion happening now. We are not immune from the forces of big Pharma. Eternal vigilance is always required.

[Colleen]

Ozwest,

Eternal vigilance Let us ever remain so. We need to inform ourselves because the big dogs are not doing the job to our advantage.

[Ozwest]

Colleen, Its not the dog in the fight.. it's the fight in the dog. Ron Paul supporters are tough little puppies.

[Colleen]

Ozwest,

We're just mad as hell & not gonna take it anymore!

So glad to see so many abroad taking an interest in his campaign! This is a very good thing and we appreciate all of our friends down underand elsewhere!

[ChooseLiberty]

Turns out Fred Reed was posting about this recently -

"In thinking about socialized medicine, a couple of points merit thought:

First, the people who are most against it least need it. Usually they are columnists of the political right and the people who read them. Columnists without exception are of intelligence above the average, as are almost all of their readers. With few if any exceptions, they are well educated. Consequently they tend to be prosperous, savvy, and very likely to have good insurance.

They also have little or, more likely, no real contact with anyone who might need socialized medicine. For example in Washington, which I know well, the klaxons of left and right berate each other from the cocktail parties of Georgetown and Cap Hill, eat in posh restaurants, and vacation in the Greek Isles. They do not know the people of the truck stops and gas stations.

Second, opponents of socialized medicine seem to think that such a system would be subject to exploitation by grifters and scam artists. They are right. Note that the grifters would not be people receiving care, but Republican doctors who would pad their bills and otherwise skim off unwatched cream. We are all against corruption until it is our turn at the trough. Note also that a woman with a broken leg does not pretend to have two broken legs so as to get an extra cast.

It seems to me that the underlying question is not that of socialized medicine but rather: What is our attitude as a nation toward people who are not very smart? Who furthermore are culturally impoverished? Who are among the substantial fraction of Americans who can barely read?

They exist in large numbers. Half the white population have IQs below 100. The proportion among various non-white groups is much higher. Throw in legal aliens with fourth-grade educations and little command of English, and people in small towns where the idea of going to college is only slightly stranger than that of going to Mars.

Few of them are welfare cheats. Usually they have worked hard all their lives. Often they vote Republican. They are just…”stupid” is unkind but perhaps best conveys their condition, though some of the apparent stupidity is in fact ignorance. They can’t balance a checkbook, must less understand rollovers on a 401(k). They don’t understand what 18% interest on a credit card means, and can’t read, much less understand, a contract. (“The party of the first part, hereinafter….”) They aren’t smart enough to be entrepreneurs. Very likely, they have never read a book in their lives.

Try to imagine never having read a book. You can’t do it.

Word-crafters of my acquaintance rail against Hillary for supporting socialized medicine. They seem to think that the beneficiaries of the program would be people like themselves, only shiftless. “I studied and worked my way up and made something of myself, and I take care of myself. Why don’t these lazy bastards to the same?” Easy. Because these of my friends have IQs averaging in excess of 140, while the lazy bastards (who in fact are neither) check in at maybe 90.

I often hear it said that people should be able to invest as they think best the payments they make into Social Security. Of course what is really going on is an attempt by stock funds to get their hands on lots of other people’s money. Still, the argument is made that freedom and free enterprise demand that government not take, etc. “It’s our money. Let us invest it.” This ignores the fact that over half the population is absolutely, irremediably, hermetically incapable of investing intelligently.

Now, what do we do with people who have obeyed all the fabled American rules, who have worked, perhaps at pathetic wages and no benefits, and never cheated, and been honest citizens, and then the bottling plant went to China and they’re old and have nothing? What?

We could be good social Darwinists and let them rot. They are not cutting edge people, not Verilog mechanics or optical engineers or hedge-fund managers. Who needs them? All right. If this is your position, say so. Look me in the eye and say, “Screw’em. I don’t care what happens to them and I’m not going to spend a red cent on them.” Say this, and I will understand you.

An obstacle to thought here is that the people in the editorial suites and cocktail parties are twiddlers of abstractions. Waving a shrimp speared on a toothpick, holding a glass of vintage Sobriquet, they speak of second-order supply side multiplier effects of marginal increases in labor costs and what Burke and Adam Smith said. You’ve seen their websites: “Rothman on Kleinfelter.” “Kleinfelter on Fergweiler.” “Fergweiler on Theftwunkel.” Intellectual sparring is their world.

It’s different to Mary Sal Wooten in a decaying trailer somewhere on 301 South, with her retinas peeling like wallpaper from diabetic retinopathy, ankles swollen and darkening toward gangrene, and the hospital won’t take her because it isn’t an emergency and she can’t afford her medicine. Really, truly no-shit can’t afford it.

What do we do with people like her? People who just flat can’t handle the complexity of today’s world? It seems to me that anyone who wants to think about socialized medicine has to answer that question before starting.

When I was a kid in King George Country, Virginia, the answer commonly was the federal government. Dahlgren Naval Proving Grounds was there. It hired a lot of the local country kids, rednecks as we now say, as gate guards, truck drivers, maintenance workers, and so on. These jobs legitimately needed doing, and those hired did them well. The jobs carried benefits and pensions. But the private sector won’t if it can avoid it.

What other solutions are available? Many say, “It’s a job for private charity.” This is another way of saying, “Screw’em, I ain’t paying a cent.” Yet others say cut taxes and the resulting economic boom will lift all boats. This is another way of saying, “Screw’em, I ain’t paying a cent.”

But let’s at least have the dignity to say what we mean. The truth is that large numbers of people cannot take care of themselves beyond showing up at work every day and spinning lug nuts on the assembly line. They aren’t going to invest wisely from youth because they aren’t smart enough. Employers aren’t going to provide retirements unless forced to. Hospitals won’t take them if they can avoid it. Do we say, “Screw’em, let’em croak”? Apparently. Then let’s say so plainly."


fredoneverything.net

[ChooseLiberty]

You were offended by the word "conservatards"? :D

Once again.

Lighten up, Francis. :D


Yeah but conservatards was a bit much. Discussion does not mean disparaging. If you want your discussion to be taken seriously, you approach your opponents with a certain level of respect, at least enough respect to not call them some perjorative name. Sure, you have the right to do that, but it invalidates any of the validity of your discussion for most people simply by your show of immaturity. (this is in reference to the OP)

[Ozwest]

ChooseLiberty, You have aptly illustrated how the disadvantaged will always depend upon the charity of others in a privatised health system. No matter the generosity of others, is it the moral obligation of a prosperous society to guarantee health care to all? Interesting.

[noxagol]

Waaa Waa Waa! I hate these, think of the children!, type arguments. I am one of those poor people and I hate socialized anything. I won't be covered by insurance in about a week. I want the government out of health care.

And yes, screw them I ain't paying a cent. I will say it, and I do say it, to people's faces. I do not like being forced to do anything, and often fight tooth and nail and make it as miserable as possible for the forcer. I especially do not like being forced to help other people, especially with my money which I need so that I can build some savings and not be completely fucked when something unplanned happens.

[sickmint79]

interesting post.

[nexalacer]

/snip
The claims that socialized systems are cheaper and more efficient are completely invalid.

I think the claims about efficiency are supported with the way they gather data for Medicare. What they don't talk about is that costs for Medicare are 2.4 times higher than those of people in Employment Insurance plans.

Also, they don't really care about it being cheaper for government, because government is the goose that laid the golden egg.... they want it cheaper for the poor people.

[nexalacer]

I wrote a couple of diaries (http://www.dailykos.com/user/nexalacer) over at DailyKOS if you wanna see how I attempted to argue some of the points of free-market health care over there... I was battered, but I got some positive recommendations and not labeled troll, so it's possible with enough effort, one day we could convince them. But honestly, I just enjoy getting my work harshly reviewed.

If you don't wanna visit "the enemy", check the same posts on myspace. (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=4014187)

[ThePieSwindler]

You were offended by the word "conservatards"? :D

Once again.

Lighten up, Francis. :D

Im not a conservative, so no, i was not offended. I was simply saying why people were objecting to this thread that you seem to pass off as being jovial. One of your more recent posts actually contributed to the discussion, but your original post was just provacative and appeared to make the pressumption that conservatives were idiots, and that the "conservatards" talking about socialized medicine were idiots on the subject.

That fred reed fellow set up so many strawmen in that piece that i'd probably have to make bales out of the hay that would result. All people need to do is look at our own health history before the 70s, and look at the market trends in pretty much every field except medicine. A system that is fair for all (a free market) is superior to a system that is fair for the priveleged (the current system) or a system that is fair only for the poor because they have the most to gain (socialized medicine). The issue facing health care is not that everyone is not covered by insurance, it is that prices are too high, far too high. Nationalizing health care won't do anyting to fix that, or if it does, it will do it through means of price control, which will be costly. In the end, it is the taxpayer who will suffer the most, and the health freedom of people who might not want to enter the system that will be the untold casualty.

[ChooseLiberty]

Ok. Thanks for caring so much. You'll have to forgive me if I don't check my opinions out with you first. LOL. Do I think all the talking conservatard heads really understand what they're talking about most of the time and not just babbling on and on about "talking points"? - not so much. Do I think the "liberals" are any better? Nah.

Maybe you could just address the "Mary Sal Wooten" strawman (woman?) for us?

How would that work in the free market?





Im not a conservative, so no, i was not offended. I was simply saying why people were objecting to this thread that you seem to pass off as being jovial. One of your more recent posts actually contributed to the discussion, but your original post was just provacative and appeared to make the pressumption that conservatives were idiots, and that the "conservatards" talking about socialized medicine were idiots on the subject.

That fred reed fellow set up so many strawmen in that piece that i'd probably have to make bales out of the hay that would result. All people need to do is look at our own health history before the 70s, and look at the market trends in pretty much every field except medicine. A system that is fair for all (a free market) is superior to a system that is fair for the priveleged (the current system) or a system that is fair only for the poor because they have the most to gain (socialized medicine). The issue facing health care is not that everyone is not covered by insurance, it is that prices are too high, far too high. Nationalizing health care won't do anyting to fix that, or if it does, it will do it through means of price control, which will be costly. In the end, it is the taxpayer who will suffer the most, and the health freedom of people who might not want to enter the system that will be the untold casualty.

[ChooseLiberty]

John Stossel v Michael Moore next week on 20/20.

Friday Sept. 14th. A John Stossel Special: "Whose Body Is It, Anyway? Sick in America"

[Broadlighter]

Turns out Fred Reed was posting about this recently -

"In thinking about socialized medicine, a couple of points merit thought:

First, the people who are most against it least need it. Usually they are columnists of the political right and the people who read them. Columnists without exception are of intelligence above the average, as are almost all of their readers. With few if any exceptions, they are well educated. Consequently they tend to be prosperous, savvy, and very likely to have good insurance.

They also have little or, more likely, no real contact with anyone who might need socialized medicine. For example in Washington, which I know well, the klaxons of left and right berate each other from the cocktail parties of Georgetown and Cap Hill, eat in posh restaurants, and vacation in the Greek Isles. They do not know the people of the truck stops and gas stations.

Second, opponents of socialized medicine seem to think that such a system would be subject to exploitation by grifters and scam artists. They are right. Note that the grifters would not be people receiving care, but Republican doctors who would pad their bills and otherwise skim off unwatched cream. We are all against corruption until it is our turn at the trough. Note also that a woman with a broken leg does not pretend to have two broken legs so as to get an extra cast.

It seems to me that the underlying question is not that of socialized medicine but rather: What is our attitude as a nation toward people who are not very smart? Who furthermore are culturally impoverished? Who are among the substantial fraction of Americans who can barely read?

They exist in large numbers. Half the white population have IQs below 100. The proportion among various non-white groups is much higher. Throw in legal aliens with fourth-grade educations and little command of English, and people in small towns where the idea of going to college is only slightly stranger than that of going to Mars.

Few of them are welfare cheats. Usually they have worked hard all their lives. Often they vote Republican. They are just…”stupid” is unkind but perhaps best conveys their condition, though some of the apparent stupidity is in fact ignorance. They can’t balance a checkbook, must less understand rollovers on a 401(k). They don’t understand what 18% interest on a credit card means, and can’t read, much less understand, a contract. (“The party of the first part, hereinafter….”) They aren’t smart enough to be entrepreneurs. Very likely, they have never read a book in their lives.

Try to imagine never having read a book. You can’t do it.

Word-crafters of my acquaintance rail against Hillary for supporting socialized medicine. They seem to think that the beneficiaries of the program would be people like themselves, only shiftless. “I studied and worked my way up and made something of myself, and I take care of myself. Why don’t these lazy bastards to the same?” Easy. Because these of my friends have IQs averaging in excess of 140, while the lazy bastards (who in fact are neither) check in at maybe 90.

I often hear it said that people should be able to invest as they think best the payments they make into Social Security. Of course what is really going on is an attempt by stock funds to get their hands on lots of other people’s money. Still, the argument is made that freedom and free enterprise demand that government not take, etc. “It’s our money. Let us invest it.” This ignores the fact that over half the population is absolutely, irremediably, hermetically incapable of investing intelligently.

Now, what do we do with people who have obeyed all the fabled American rules, who have worked, perhaps at pathetic wages and no benefits, and never cheated, and been honest citizens, and then the bottling plant went to China and they’re old and have nothing? What?

We could be good social Darwinists and let them rot. They are not cutting edge people, not Verilog mechanics or optical engineers or hedge-fund managers. Who needs them? All right. If this is your position, say so. Look me in the eye and say, “Screw’em. I don’t care what happens to them and I’m not going to spend a red cent on them.” Say this, and I will understand you.

An obstacle to thought here is that the people in the editorial suites and cocktail parties are twiddlers of abstractions. Waving a shrimp speared on a toothpick, holding a glass of vintage Sobriquet, they speak of second-order supply side multiplier effects of marginal increases in labor costs and what Burke and Adam Smith said. You’ve seen their websites: “Rothman on Kleinfelter.” “Kleinfelter on Fergweiler.” “Fergweiler on Theftwunkel.” Intellectual sparring is their world.

It’s different to Mary Sal Wooten in a decaying trailer somewhere on 301 South, with her retinas peeling like wallpaper from diabetic retinopathy, ankles swollen and darkening toward gangrene, and the hospital won’t take her because it isn’t an emergency and she can’t afford her medicine. Really, truly no-shit can’t afford it.

What do we do with people like her? People who just flat can’t handle the complexity of today’s world? It seems to me that anyone who wants to think about socialized medicine has to answer that question before starting.

When I was a kid in King George Country, Virginia, the answer commonly was the federal government. Dahlgren Naval Proving Grounds was there. It hired a lot of the local country kids, rednecks as we now say, as gate guards, truck drivers, maintenance workers, and so on. These jobs legitimately needed doing, and those hired did them well. The jobs carried benefits and pensions. But the private sector won’t if it can avoid it.

What other solutions are available? Many say, “It’s a job for private charity.” This is another way of saying, “Screw’em, I ain’t paying a cent.” Yet others say cut taxes and the resulting economic boom will lift all boats. This is another way of saying, “Screw’em, I ain’t paying a cent.”

But let’s at least have the dignity to say what we mean. The truth is that large numbers of people cannot take care of themselves beyond showing up at work every day and spinning lug nuts on the assembly line. They aren’t going to invest wisely from youth because they aren’t smart enough. Employers aren’t going to provide retirements unless forced to. Hospitals won’t take them if they can avoid it. Do we say, “Screw’em, let’em croak”? Apparently. Then let’s say so plainly."


fredoneverything.net

This is the kind of thinking that says, these poor children cannot take care of themselves. This seems to be the same thinking of the Machiavellian types who feel they must know what is best for everyone who isn't part of the state.

The conditions that got us into this state of neediness are what is wrong with the healthcare system that perpetuates it. If we have to accept social Darwinism so that we can have free-market healthcare, so be it. I believe the truth will be that freedom and responsibility will lite a fire under some people's behinds and others will sadly fall by the wayside. For the most part, I take the more optimiistic view that more people will get smarter about their health needs and respond accordingly. Also generosity will help some of those who are slower to adapt to the free-market. Over time, the system will prove itself to be superior to both Government-corporate healthcare and Socialized medicine.

What the freedom movement is doing now is showing people that there is a real alternative to looking to government for paternal care. It's an attitude adjustment and everyone from the President on down to the janitor at the amusement park will have to make it at some point. A free-thinking society demands that no one can assume what's absolutely best for another person, parents with underage children, excepted.

[foofighter20x]

Ok. Thanks for caring so much. You'll have to forgive me if I don't check my opinions out with you first. LOL. Do I think all the talking conservatard heads really understand what they're talking about most of the time and not just babbling on and on about "talking points"? - not so much. Do I think the "liberals" are any better? Nah.

Maybe you could just address the "Mary Sal Wooten" strawman (woman?) for us?

How would that work in the free market?

How would it work in the free market you ask?

Well... Competition would drive prices lower as doctor price their services to bring in more patients. Also, free trade with medicine would allow generic drugs into the market at lower prices instead of letting government allow protectionist trademarks of chemical soups in pill form that are slightly altered every couple of years to maintain/renew the copyright on it (more companies making a drug means more competition and lower prices)...

In short, prices on everything from drugs to treatments to prescriptions would go down, and "Mary Sal Wooten" would actually be able to afford what she couldn't before. ;)

[Omnis]

Anybody see the Tylenol Worker commercial about making Tylenol with love? Expect more of that when many companies start competing with paracetamol/acetaminophen.

[ChooseLiberty]

Ok. So you want "Mary Sal Wooten" to die and "reduce the surplus population".

And we assume you or your family will accept the same fate stoically if you are consigned to a trailer with debilitating diabetes and no form of relief or support. Of course, really, you think it could never happen to you, right? ;)



If we have to accept social Darwinism so that we can have free-market healthcare, so be it. I believe the truth will be that freedom and responsibility will lite a fire under some people's behinds and others will sadly fall by the wayside. For the most part, I take the more optimiistic view that more people will get smarter about their health needs and respond accordingly. Also generosity will help some of those who are slower to adapt to the free-market. Over time, the system will prove itself to be superior to both Government-corporate healthcare and Socialized medicine.

[ChooseLiberty]

This is the closest to a real "free market" solution I've read yet. So far it's mostly been just "free market" ideological posturing. Nice job. :D

How would "Mary Sal Wooten" afford even the cheapest drugs if she were unable to work? See, I'm just trying to nail things down.

Too bad there don't seem to be any "real life" examples of "free market" health care out there in the first world. New Zealand MDs = socialized; New Guinea witch doctors = free market. ;)

BTW - If anyone is confused as to what "free market" means - exactly. It seems you're not alone.

http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=9553&highlight=free+market



How would it work in the free market you ask?

Well... Competition would drive prices lower as doctor price their services to bring in more patients. Also, free trade with medicine would allow generic drugs into the market at lower prices instead of letting government allow protectionist trademarks of chemical soups in pill form that are slightly altered every couple of years to maintain/renew the copyright on it (more companies making a drug means more competition and lower prices)...

In short, prices on everything from drugs to treatments to prescriptions would go down, and "Mary Sal Wooten" would actually be able to afford what she couldn't before. ;)

[ChooseLiberty]

For inquiring minds, the guy who wrote the article above - Fred Reed at

www.fredoneverything.net

also writes for the Lew Rockwell site (free markets anyone?) -

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed-arch.html

and the Washington Times

www.washingtontimes.com

So he's not exactly a bleeding heart libby.

[ChooseLiberty]

Might as well add -

What do people think about the law that requires hospital emergency rooms to treat everyone regardless or their ability to pay?

It's causing a lot of hospitals to close due to the illegal influx.

And it's definitely a form of socialized medicine.

Should the dying uninsured or poor just be locked outside the emergency room doors to die? Maybe have all the bodies bulldozed into a convenient pile?

How would that work?

<at this point Hannity would "lose the caller"> lol

[ChooseLiberty]

This was actually better than I thought it would be.

Still didn't address the "Mary Sal Wooten" issue tho.

I think everyone agrees that the current system is FUBAR and must be changed.

Stossel actually came up with some examples of "free marketized" approaches which are still very limited.

Hope someone did a vid capture for youtube.



John Stossel v Michael Moore next week on 20/20.

Friday Sept. 14th. A John Stossel Special: "Whose Body Is It, Anyway? Sick in America"

[Cogz]

Ok. Thanks for caring so much. You'll have to forgive me if I don't check my opinions out with you first. LOL. Do I think all the talking conservatard heads really understand what they're talking about most of the time and not just babbling on and on about "talking points"? - not so much. Do I think the "liberals" are any better? Nah.

Maybe you could just address the "Mary Sal Wooten" strawman (woman?) for us?

How would that work in the free market?

Forgive me for being brief and possibly uninformed but - I imagine it would work the exact same way it does now for someone who is uninsured. I worked for seven years in a hospital interacting with numerous departments. We were a non-for-profit (and not religious institution related) system and from time to time we had patients come in that needed treatment who had no insurance as well as no medicare. What happened was that upon leaving the hospital someone would contact the patient about setting up some sort of payment system. If they declined payment in any form, yes the hospital would call them and harass them and try and get their money. However, if the patient has no money eventually they have to write it off.

I forget the numbers but just about every hospital nationwide (and I would say every but I don't have the data to back it up) writes off a fair percentage of "charity" work. Typically religious hospitals tend to write off the largest chunk percentage wise.

However, because of the dueling effects of having to account for charity work and having to bump up prices to get the most effect out of medicare - the price for said treatment goes up to compensate for those who cannot afford it. This in turn makes it less likely that that "Mary Sal Wooten" would be able to afford to pay for the care that she affords.

[Cogz]

What do people think about the law that requires hospital emergency rooms to treat everyone regardless or their ability to pay?

It's causing a lot of hospitals to close due to the illegal influx.

And it's definitely a form of socialized medicine.

Should the dying uninsured or poor just be locked outside the emergency room doors to die? Maybe have all the bodies bulldozed into a convenient pile?


How is it socialized medicine if the hospitals who gave the free care had to close? I thought socialized meant "payed for by taxpayer dollars" or something to that effect?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&defl=en&q=define:Socialized+healthcare&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
I support treating everyone who comes to your doorstep, but also understand that there is a reason why a hospital room costs $550 or so dollars a day, and it isn't because nurses and stuff cost so much. (you are usually sharing that nurse with up to 8 other patients!)

For example, I am going to make some sweeping generalizations because its fuN!

Lets say that hospital room is listed at $550/day on the price board. If you are a client of medicare or some other insurance company, they negotiate the actual price down to lets say $380 but also give you pages upon pages of regulations on how to care for your patient (another story all together).

Now, if you are "self-pay" you will be billed the full $550/day. However, if you are a poor broke dude and cannot afford to pay, they will eventually write you off for a total of $262 per day. (on their balance statements they may still write off the $550).

Btw - I am not demeaning your argument. I used to be a huge proponent of Universal Healthcare. Our system is most definitely broken!

[RonPaulIsGood]

Hillary lied that she does not support about socialized medicine and she lied that she would make a free market approach.

[ChooseLiberty]

There's a lot of confusion over what "free market" and "socialized" means even on this board and among the experts.

For now let's say socialized means government regulation over private property. There are various degrees.

Requiring the hospital emergency rooms to take all comers is therefore socialized since it is regulating private hospitals on how to handle their business. Since you're in the business you know that somebody ends up paying for those visits even if the e-room visitor does not - doctors and nurses don't usually work for free.

I'm not really making an argument here, I'm just posing questions that don't have easy answers to clarify how the "free market" vs. "socialized medicine" would work IRL.

A free market has the "Mary Sal Wooten" problem. And a socialized system has the problem of "free riders" that is closing emergency rooms and hospitals, but the free marketers haven't clearly explained how it would work either. See Fred Reed's article above.

Maybe the answer is there would be an outburst of charity or the hospitals would just distribute the charges over the rest of the patients like they do now. In that case, under a free market the hospitals that didn't accept "free riders" could provide a lower rate to the people that actually paid so eventually all the non-free riders would end up at the non-charity hospitals. Interesting.


How is it socialized medicine if the hospitals who gave the free care had to close? I thought socialized meant "payed for by taxpayer dollars" or something to that effect?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&defl=en&q=define:Socialized+healthcare&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
I support treating everyone who comes to your doorstep, but also understand that there is a reason why a hospital room costs $550 or so dollars a day, and it isn't because nurses and stuff cost so much. (you are usually sharing that nurse with up to 8 other patients!)

For example, I am going to make some sweeping generalizations because its fuN!

Lets say that hospital room is listed at $550/day on the price board. If you are a client of medicare or some other insurance company, they negotiate the actual price down to lets say $380 but also give you pages upon pages of regulations on how to care for your patient (another story all together).

Now, if you are "self-pay" you will be billed the full $550/day. However, if you are a poor broke dude and cannot afford to pay, they will eventually write you off for a total of $262 per day. (on their balance statements they may still write off the $550).

Btw - I am not demeaning your argument. I used to be a huge proponent of Universal Healthcare. Our system is most definitely broken!

[RonPaulIsGood]

We don't need any regulation, intervention, and subsidies specifically on healthcare. We can just give the poor more money so they can choose to spend it on healthcare. I don't understand why is the government specifically intervent on healthcare but not just giving more money to poor people. But taxing the rich would raise sales prices. To be effective, we should only give money to the "very poor", not the middle class nor the lower class. FairTax unfortunately give money to all of the non-upper-classes. Abolishing the Fed is better.

I am guessing that Democrats don't trust commercial healthcare because the rich wants to "exploit" its power. The Democrats also think that governmental agencies, such as school, healthcare, etc. is better than the free market because they think that a unified system is "more efficient" than free markets. That is why they like big Federal gov't

[ionlyknowy]

I just watched Sicko by Michael Moore. They way he portrays the healthcare in Canada and France is sooo peachy. But I wonder how much in taxes these people pay?

He never mentions how much they are taxed...

There are not perfect answers to every question or problem. Healthcare might be one of those problems, there is no right answer, just an answer that is more correct.

To find a more correct answer first you must establish the goals of healthcare.
Must this healthcare provide care for all people and make it affordable?
Must this healthcare also be effective and efficient, (no waiting, high quality treatment?)
Must this healthcare also provide nice salaries for doctors?
Must this healthcare not affect or raise taxes past a certain amount?

Depending on what your stated goals are will change the "correct answer"

This is why people have trouble finding the "correct" way to address the problem (free market, socialized medicine)

Both have their advantages both have their disadvantages.

For instance, free market will not provide care for EVERY person. If you cannot pay, then you cannot get the care, period. That is how free market works. It is based on supply and demand. At least SOME people have to be priced out of the market or else no one would enter the market as a doctor. If everyone could afford a triple bypass, then I dont think you would see many people wanting to be doctors.

Socialized medicine fixes this problem theoretically. Government pays for the healthcare. Therefore, everyone gets the care for "free"
BUT
You have the problem of lack of quality of care, and potential for lines for critical procedures.
And much higher taxes to fund it...

If it is the goal of a country to have mediocre care for everyone, then socialized medicine is the way to go.

If it is the goal of a country to have top of the notch care with very few lines, but are willing to deny poor people care, then free market is the answer.

Free markets favor people that have money, pure and simple.

Which do you want to have?

[QKRTHNU]

In regards to (the "Mary Sal Wooten" issue ).

A Free Market Health Care System would mean that her medications were much less expensive.

Obviously cheap is not the same as zero cost. Since she doesn't have any money and apparently no way to earn money, she would be reliant on family, friends & other private charity. Surely there would be someone who would value her life more than the small cost of the inexpensive free-market medications.

And most importantly, they would do so voluntarily, no force required.

[Quizno]

Something interesting but un-related to the topic. Starting at :20s into the video:


Our government is in business to the extent of owning more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to 1/5 of the total
industrial capacity of the United States.


If this is true, what happens to the profits from these companies. How many businesses are owned by the government today?

[Jenna!]

All the conservatard talk show hosts must have gotten "socialized medicine" as their talking point from conservatard HQ this week.

They never define "socialized medicine", but are dead set against it, whatever it is.

From listening to them I get the impression that if there's medicine is socialized all the private practice doctors would go away. Somehow I don't think this is true.

What happens in England and Canada which they always hold up as examples of people dying in the streets because of socialized medicine. Are private doctors outlawed? Why?

I'm not totally against socialized medicine because the AMA or some prestigious group did a study a few years ago and found socialized medicine would actually be cheaper and more efficient overall since the insurance industry bureaucracy is huge and add little value and people that have insurance are paying for the uninsured anyway. Besides are who is going pass a law that says emergency rooms don't have to treat matters of life and death insurance or not? No one.

What say you?


Allopathy or conventional medicine took over and homeopathic medicine was run to the ground in the 30'. Rockefellars dominated the allopathic scene and eventually took over. i don't believe that allopathy is doing a good job of healing people. It focouses on disease, and supports big corporate medicine. Corporate medicine is for the money. So it's foundation was set up by a monopolists and the theory of conventional medicine is not about curing, but rather treating disease. it is very shortsighted and refuses to look at the bigger picture. i know I am speaking in general terms. but I think it is important to understand the larger picture. also the fda have been very harsh on alternative health promoters, because these companys promote natural health medicines that actuallly heal many diseases claimed by gov't to be very difficult to cure or treat. Google these terms

newstarget.com is an excellent source to healing

[Holly]

I have a few complaints about our Canadian health care system and those do revolve around wait times (that's been improving in the last year or two) and the almost careless regard people have for it in terms of overusing the medical system. Because our system is 'free'....no charge at all whenever a person goes to a doctor or the hospital and no insurance forms to be filled out.....it's very easy to go to the doctor almost unnecessarily which increases the costs immensely.

Yes, there are many complaints from doctors about the system too because they do have a cap on their income, however, it is not a salaried system for doctors. It is fee based.

I've never known anything except universal healthcare so I come from a basis of a kind of luxury of never having had to worry about paying a hospital or doctor's bill. I have no idea what it's like for people in the U.S. to deal with insurance companies ....whether it's the paperwork or the possibility of having their coverage cut off. It would be interesting to see how a true free market model would work.

But as much as I complain about our system here, statistically we seem to do fairly well. I know we have a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. and we live longer which is, apparently, attributable to our health care system but there's no question the system needs improving. One thing I can tell you about our universal healthcare though....Canadians hold it sacrosanct and no politician ever would consider touching it unless it was to make improvements if he/she ever hoped to be elected.

From a Harvard Medical School study:
A Harvard Medical School survey has found that Canadians are healthier than Americans, have better health-care access than Americans and are generally more satisfied with their medical services than their southern neighbours.

Even though some Canadians complain about having to wait for operations, when their universal cover is compared to America's patchy services where tens of millions of people have no cover at all, America's overall medical services are seen as inferior Canada's.

Canadians, per head, spend much less than Americans do on health, and end up receiving much more and much better health care - Canadians are also enjoying far better health.

Here are some comparisons

-- 20.7% of Americans are obese
-- 15.3% of Canadians are obese

Incidence of diabetes in adults is 50% higher in America than Canada

-- 13.6% of Americans do no exercise at all
-- 6.5% of Canadians do no exercise at all

-- Even though 19% of Canadians are regular smokers compared to USA's 16.8%, the USA has double the percentage of people suffering from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).

-- 79% of Americans have a family doctor
-- 85% of Canadians have a family doctor

-- 10% of Americans say they cannot pay for needed medication
-- 5.1% of Canadians say they cannot pay for needed medication

-- 13.2% of Americans say they have unmet health needs
-- 10.7% of Canadians say they have unmet health needs
Canadians say this is due to wait times. Most of the Americans say this is due to not being able to get the care at all. The most common barrier to access in the USA is money. The most common barrier to access in Canada is the time you have to wait to get the treatment.

-- Life expectancy in Canada is three years longer than in the USA.

The USA, which was recently compared to Great Britain in a study, also came out much worse in nearly all counts. And Great Britain usually fares badly against its European Union neighbours! This report even found that the lower classes in England enjoy better levels of health and general health care than the upper-middle classes in the USA.

Another study found that among Americans who do have access to medical care, dissatisfaction levels are much higher than in other developed nations. Click here to read about it. Americans are more likely to be at the receiving end of medical errors than patients in other countries.

Per head, Americans spend twice as much as the British or Canadians do each year on health. This leads many people to two questions:

1. Why are Americans so much less healthy than people in other developed nations?
2. Why are American health care services so poor when compared to other developed nations?

The answer to those two questions most definitely is not 'lack of money'.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44315.php

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

All the conservatard talk show hosts must have gotten "socialized medicine" as their talking point from conservatard HQ this week.

They never define "socialized medicine", but are dead set against it, whatever it is.

From listening to them I get the impression that if there's medicine is socialized all the private practice doctors would go away. Somehow I don't think this is true.

What happens in England and Canada which they always hold up as examples of people dying in the streets because of socialized medicine. Are private doctors outlawed? Why?

I'm not totally against socialized medicine because the AMA or some prestigious group did a study a few years ago and found socialized medicine would actually be cheaper and more efficient overall since the insurance industry bureaucracy is huge and add little value and people that have insurance are paying for the uninsured anyway. Besides are who is going pass a law that says emergency rooms don't have to treat matters of life and death insurance or not? No one.

What say you?

K socialized medicine is like this.

- End of World War II -
America: Damn commies and their socialism
- Cold War-
America: We must stop the commies from having people be given an equal amount of everything!
Soviet Union: We must stop the capitalists from oiling their wheels with the blood of the workers!
- 2008 Elections -
Democrats: Maybe commie medicine isn't such a bad idea.

DEMOCRATS = COMMIES!

[BirdsAreWild]

I can not believe that someone who posts about the Canadian healthcare system would use a study done by another country. If the Canadian Healthcare system is so good then why do they have wait times of over 70 days for cardiac surgery. Do you have any idea how many people die during that period of time or are you just concerned with the reulsts of the people who lived long enough to have surgery?

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index_e.html

See how wait times can affect a persons health here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U

Canada ranks 23 out of 30 in consumer satisfaction with health care:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080121/health_care_080121/20080121?hub=Canada

I could go on and on but don't really see the point. Government is not good at managing money or healthcare. When you want to go to the doctor do you ask your car mechanic what is wrong with you????? What makes anyone think that politicans are qualified to make healthcare decisions???