Socialized Medicine - Who has it - What do you think?

Please allow me to ask Kaethy, may be a wee bit personal.

Are you a more fair and compassionate person because of the law, or because you are naturally a compassionate and fair person?

In other words, if we removed the laws that force you to help people via taxation, or would punish you for violence, would you stop being charitable, and would you become violent?

 

Ok, a debate is not really necessary. I didn't want to call you out or anything, I have just been dying for a decent debate on this, and the only one I have had is with iul.

Just remember what Ron Paul says. Economic and personal (civil) liberty are the same thing. You can't separate them, and that is the crux of his position. One that I think is very rational. After all, without the right to personal property, one cannot exist without the society. Which means that the society has a claim on their life. Not only the means to feed and shelter one's self, but the right to do so.

Ok, but libertarianism isn't about intellectual purity (although if it was intellectually pure, then who could argue for any other system?) it's about as consistent a philosophy of personal liberty possible. An anti-war doctrine not because the "enemy" is innocent, but that it is inhuman to perpetuate violence unless absolutely necessary. An economic theory that allows for upward mobility, without the glass ceiling of socialism. Equal rights for every individual, rich or poor, male or female, regardless of race or sexual preference WITHOUT EXCEPTION (no class or caste warfare).

There are obviously others, but I think you get the gist of it.

My friend, this is an irrational fear. Poor people went to school and got treatment long before the government started subsidizing or providing those services. It's a fear that certain groups that want more government intervention like to pull out all of the time, to intimidate and coerce people.

It's actually worked in practice too. Believe me, socialism neither works on paper, or in practice. The government cannot possible meet all needs, regardless of productive input. It's a negative sum game.

No, your motives seem noble. I don't think you're out for yourself, you have a genuine compassion for others based on our discussions.

Where do you draw the line on what is guaranteed materially? If it is guaranteed regardless of productivity, what is the incentive to work? A right to education and medical care, are actually lower than a right to food and shelter. If we guarantee everyone education, health care, food and shelter, what is the point in working? Who would work for these things if they are their dependents could get them for free?

That's the problem the Soviets had. By trying to give everyone equal access, regardless of whether they wanted it, needed it or deserved it, they mis-allocated resources. This eventually lead to a systemic crash. It's precisely why socialism does not work in the long run. Again, because it is a negative sum game. You have some people providing everything for all people. Who works? And if they refuse to work, do we ship them to a gulag? Do we limit the food, shelter, education and health care everyone else is getting for free, for doing nothing?

This is heavy stuff, and I don't profess to have the best answers, or the greatest arguments. But one has to ask, under our semi-socialist, semi-capitalist system which is half-democrat, half-republican and not very libertarian, why we still have starving people? Why we still have ghettos? Why we still have homeless (in fact, we don't even take adequate care of our veterans)?

You are guaranteed this with socialism. You are also eventually guaranteed to go bankrupt because you will run out of accrued capital to generate a productive "profit" and advance society.

Again, look at the difference between America's flawed capitalism and Russia's flawed communism. Which one produced more art, more culture, more technology, more entertainment, more innovation?

By your argument, it is better to be poor. The rich are not necessarily some bourgeoise class, ala Marx. Some of those people are very talented, very skilled and very hard working. To lump them into a group because of their earnings, doesn't respect them as individuals. Which is actually anti-civil liberties, but I digress.

I don't believe it's stealing from the rich to give to the poor. The middle class is the one that pays taxes towards the lower class' health care, but cannot afford their own family care. The middle class is the class that is shrinking. Socialism claims we will only have one class, but the upper class actually pays the bulk of the taxes, and without their wealth, we would not be able to afford what we already have.

Not a strong argument. It's ok to steal because they have more? Heaven forbid you ever do well for yourself, the political class will be banging down your door for the money they use to buy votes.

Then you don't believe in private property rights. If you don't have control of your property, you have nowhere to exercise free speech. You have no where to assemble. You have no place to worship. You can't feed your family by your labor before you feed the rest of society. In fact, society (the majority, or elite political minority) may determine that someone else besides you or your family get the fruits of your labor.

Remember, it's not the rich who are taxed exclusively (although as I wrote, it's wrong-headed to blame successful people or the heirs of success for their situation), it's everyone. When the money runs dry, inflation taxes the poor and the dependent.

I'm not telling you I am right and you are wrong. But please, check out some different ideologies. Heck, check out Marxism. Look at arguments for and against.

Or just take a shortcut and read FA Hayek's "Road to Serfdom".

 

If the U.S. spent less on its military, it would have ample to spend on the health of its citizens without increasing taxes at all!

I've lived in New Zealand (full social medicine) - advantages - free health care - disadvantages - some long waiting lists (and the doctors are still well paid and some of the richest in society) - six months to get my tonsils done, but free when done.

I've lived in Australia (Moderate social medicine) - free GP visits if they bulk bill, some out of pocket expenses.

I have a health fund which has only ever been good to my family and I - they are nothing like the HMO's in the United States. They are regulated on what they can charge, etc.

 

What the US needs is 5,00,000 new immigrants every year, year after year, to pay social security and other taxes to fund the ongoing "liberations" around the world.

 

The problem with these systems:

1) they stifle innovation: it is more expensive for drugs to be introduced into the system than for current drugs to remain the norm. see Germany's system for an example.

2) they eliminate market forces and replace them with a sort of inhuman price-efficiency force: it is more beneficial for the system if a patient dies waiting for a treatment than if the patient lives. if the patient dies, then the system saves tons on costs. problems with this in Canada.

3) it is not free health care. it is health care paid for with money taken straight out of the economy via taxes.

Technology brings the price of healthcare down and makes it affordable for everyone. The problem is not that hospitals are greedy and charge too much. It's special deals by the govn't, regulations and govn't bureaucracies cause prices to rise severely. We need HSA's for every American, and way less regulation. And the U.S. government should stop its push against specialty hospitals - this is driving up prices and eliminating quality competition in the name of stopping alleged, largely-imagined "kickbacks" that specialty doctors receive.

Example of technology driving prices down: LASIK eye surgery. Example of regulations and special deals and special interest groups driving prices up: the U.S. healthcare system!

Socialized medicine has its perks, but it is inefficient in the long run and not as conducive to the development of new technology as a free-market system.

 

I disagree totally - why does everyone think private enterprise runs better than government. Its a load of crap - I've work both in government jobs and private - and most government departments do amazing things with the resources they have. My wifes a nurse and worked in both public and private and public hospitals push through far greater numbers and are much more efficient in reality - their staff are often overworked - most wouldn't do the workload they do for a private company - at least not for a lot more money - no one is going to slog their guts out to make a company/person/shareholders richer if they know they aren't going to get a higher wage or some other perk, whereas I find in Public service most are willing to work for more than just money - they know they are working for the greater good of society in general - the payoff - the job is more secure than private enterprise as the government doesn't go broke or retrench.

Not true. Many diseases have a small number of suffers and in a capitalist system no new technology will be developed because the drug companies can't make a buck out of it. Whereas socialized medicine will still put money into the R&D of "non-profitable" technology for the sake of advancement.

If you left all new technology to private enterprise alone you would find many great discoveries would never be made.

 

Private enterprise vs Public?

The U.S. has a history of socialized army, navy, airforce
socialized police forces
socialized highways
socialized schools
etc, etc.

I don't think you have much lower taxes than the rest of the world for having no/little free health care.

- Australian taxes - 30% ave. pay as you earn tax, 10% GST tax, then fees, charges, rates, etc - 50% of your real income is going in taxes

It is much different in the U.S.? Most western countries seem to be taking at least half the income of their middle class.

 

Isn't this the identical advantage for HMO's - if the patient dies they make a profit by not paying out on a losing proposition. This is the criticism of HMO's all the time - they refuse/ deny treatment.

You will find if too many patients die on the public waiting list - big pressure is put on the government to stop this happening.

 

Doesn't that make them the lower class?

The military is already becoming privatized. Highways are starting to become privatized (see TTC), and schools are failing badly, just look how far we have fallen relative to the world once the Federal dept. of ED was created. At this rate, we'll be out of the top 50 in another generation.

HMOs have a pseudo monopoly power in the US because they are required in some circumstances by law.

However, the free market works because poor service loses a customer, just as poor treatment can kill a customer.

Talk to a Doctor or someone who wants alternative medical care (natural care for example). Socialized medicine will cap doctors earnings, which will limit service, and will not accommodate natural medical treatment which is a growing and in my experience, life saving approach.

I haven't watched Sicko, not really into Michael Moore propaganda, but wonder, does he cover that Canadians now have to start paying for their medical care? In several Canadian provinces, people with a "just below" middle class earnings, have to pay a monthly fee on top of their taxes for care.

That is, again, because a (sic) free system is unsustainable. You cannot consume more than you produce indefinitely. And you cannot tax only workers, to pay for everyone using the system without limit.

So yep, Canadian workers not only pay for the health care system through income tax, the worker has to pay twice (through a monthly user fee), for the privilege of working. Great system isn't it?

 

Nice guerilla, you shut a movie off as propaganda even though you haven't seen it just because it's for what your against. I thought you were above that type of stuff.

 

Privatized everything - including the police force and we will live in the world exactly as the elites would have it - most living the lives of serfs and a few rich 'kings'.

I for one don't want everything in my life subject to the brutalities of capitalism.

Advantage of socialized medicine - mass free vaccinations - actually lessens the amount of people getting sick from preventable diseases.

 

I disagree. People think they have good health care insurance, until they really really need it. And then they are screwed, and it's too late to switch.


However, the free market works because poor service loses a customer, just as poor treatment can kill a customer.

 

Not all FREE enterprise is good enterprise.

example - the illegal DRUG trade - most capitalist business on the planet - also one of the most deadly

 

I don't think you know what I am against.

I didn't watch it because it is propaganda, not because it is what I am against. I didn't watch Loose Change, although I think we need a new 9/11 investigation. Because it is propaganda. To date, I have not watched Zeitgeist. That also appears to be propaganda.

I'm interested in the truth. Lying to myself doesn't do me any good.

Is that how it was under feudalism? Can you provide a specific example?

Right, because the collapse of the Soviet Union was due to capitalism. Where the currency became worthless because it is not absorbent enough to be toilet paper, and people had to stand in food lines to beg for their daily meals.

That was the fault of capitalism not socialism, right?

What about the Zimbabwe economy collapsing? Capitalism? Nope. Socialism. Now they are trying to restart their economy and save their worthless currency by.... CAPITALISM!

China, slowly coming out of communism, now hosting an Olympics, trading and traveling with the rest of the world is doing it by.... CAPITALISM!

The American economy, easily the most consistently successful in the last 200 years, spurred on by capitalism, reaching levels of innovation and prosperity other countries can only dream about. Did it through capitalism. As the country has become more socialist, education has declined, the debt has soared, productivity is down, and there is a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich.

The difference between capitalism and socialism is,

Under socialism, you can never be King.

Under capitalism, anyone can be King.

 

In Canada, you can't switch.

I'd be tempted to try and prove you wrong, but we could debate for years. I'll agree that I don't believe there is such a thing as a perfect extreme.

The drug trade only occurs because the government makes it a black market good. If the government legalized the drugs, the criminality of the trade would disappear instantly.

Black markets usually occur in socialist economies, or in socialized sectors.

Which brings up a good point, in that ONECARE medicine will certainly create an American black market for service or drugs that are not provided.

Because the wealthy of America will not be willing to reduce their care level to accommodate one lower standard.

 

You can't know it's propaganda if you haven't watched it.

 

The HMO's are a product of federal legislation from the 70's (HMO Act of 1973). Rep. Paul notes that the unemployed often cannot get catastrophic insurance because of the current situation:

The "government will make mistakes, and we can learn from them and eventually get it right" attitude isn't really something you see put into practice with these extremely large-scale programs. Congress hasn't been able to pass significant reform legislation for social security, for example.

It's not free health care. It's health insurance given to you from other folks' pocketbooks.

Under the socialized system, the government would also likely manage the research, too. Instead, the govn't should mimic the free market and offer a big prize for a certain cure, or you can encourage donations, like this bill attempts to do:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.457:

The following are not my words, but I think it's a pretty good explanation of why we should be cautious when equating research with progress. They're from this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/archive/index.php/t-19651.html

Sure, there is a proper role for government in many things. Like enforcing the law, funding the military, etc. And it'd be an interesting debate to discuss NASA vs the free market when it comes to space technology.

 

You've got a point there. Just because the rest of Michael Moore's films are sensationalist pandering, this one might be different.

However, I don't need to watch Sicko to understand the health care issue. And people who have only watched Sicko, are not necessarily better informed than anyone else.

 

Have you ever been served medically in a country with socialized medicine? Have you ever lived in a country with socialized medicine?

 

Yes and yes.