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

Ideology has no place in this thread. The whole point of the poll and the question was to step beyond ideology and get at the truth as it exists right now today.

From people who live with and experience socialized medicine today. Good or bad?

Not allowing that to be the core of this threads discussion and clouding it with a bunch of ideological and theoretical nonsense is a shame and speaks to the idea that ideologues fear facts. Facts pwn theories.

 

according to the poll people with socializes medicine seem to like it

 

And I bet at least half the people that voted "it's an awful idea" don't even live in a country with socialized medicine.

That whole fear of facts thing again....

Shame... the truth could have stopped a war.

 

All you have is perception, not fact. It's people who think that perception is reality that undermine any kind of serious growth.

I've already mentioned earlier in this thread, I have experience with socialized medicine. It's great if you want to cover everyone with minimum care.

If your answer is to have people on waiting lists, but THEY ARE COVERED YIPEE, then socialized medicine is great. Maybe you can feel good about people dying on waiting lists, knowing that while they couldn't get care, at least they were covered.

 

We are talking about people having to wait for non-emergency healthcare.

A hypothetical, but drawn from the real world.

Average MRI cost: $2,000.

To the insured, it costs nothing. To those non-insured for whom $2,000 is available, it is doable. To the non-insured for whom the cost of such healthcare is prohibitive, it is foregone.

Say, of the people needing an MRI, between the insured and the non-insured who have the means to pay for it, about 70% of the people needing an MRI will actually book one.

Now, compare it to a system with universal coverage. Everyone can book one. Hence, with 100% usage (over a 70% usage in the above paragraph), the wait time will necessarily be longer in the system of universal healthcare.

However, in the system without it, you have two worlds. You have a shorter wait time for those that have the ability to get the MRI. And an infinite time period for those who cannot get one.

Extend this out to thousands of other diagnostics and procedures necessary for health and the avoidance of disease, from negligible to life-threatening.

Again, the question just has to be asked, and answered: What kind of society does one want? I know my answer.

I also know that there have been tremendous strides in many societies that have national systems of coverage to address problems endemic to such a system (such as in Canada, with the waiting times issue.) It requires intelligence, a flexibility of mind, and an admission that the real world requires solutions that do not fit neatly into a mathematical formula.

 

Why do we argue about giving free health care as if people can't afford while at the same time the government steals 10-33% of your income alone? I would bet if income was no longer taxable, the average guy could get a few heart transplants just for the hell of it and not be in any financial worry. What's the big problem with this? "Well what if he doesn't manage his money wisely?"

Well what if he doesn't wipe his ass the whole way, maybe he'll stink? I guess that's his problem. What aspect of our lives do we really have full control of anymore? Like, without the government deciding what is best for us?

What this theory is doing to people is making them dependent and washes away self responsibility. If you are a germaphobe and wash your hands all the time and live in a bubble your whole life, the next time you encounter bacteria that normal people do regularly, you're going to get very sick. This is what's happening to America, it's being put in a bubble to protect it from itself, because we as individuals cannot be trusted to our own ideas.

Notice the first question that comes from the modern "progressive" toward any topic is, "how can we protect them!?".

How can we protect retirees
How can we protect the sick
How can we protect the poor
How can we protect children from anything that may ever traumatize them (anything)
How can we protect the unemployed
How can we protect foreign nations
How can we protect Americans from drugs (even though we sell them)
How can we protect us from terrorist threats
How can we protect you from yourself.

You can see where it's going, so where does it stop? Is there a boundary?

How about my own..

How can we protect people from wiping their @ss too hard?
How can we protect people from consuming too much
How can we protect you from finding out that you're not #1 after all if you got 10th place!
How can we protect you from getting rejected by women?
How can we protect you from the truth.





Protection = another form of security. Look at some of the self-made millionaire and billionaires and ask them what they value more, financial security or financial freedom.

 

Your "experience" with socialised medicine is obviously a very limited one, Or perhaps a fraudulent one manufactured for the purpose of allowing you to say "iv been there! It sucks!" as to add credibility to your ill informed, baseless opinion.

It is true that on occasions you will wait slightly longer for non-serious procedures or treatments, But if you have something wrong with you that requires immediate attention you will receive immediate attention. You simply don't wait for vital treatment. You get it as and when you need it. If you need it that day, You get it that day, Fact. And guess what, You get it in the same hospital, same ward, same theatre and by the same surgeon as a private patient.

Of course, In a free market system you will still have waiting lists. If there are 10 people before you who have also paid you better believe that the "free market" wont get around to you until it has sorted out the others. So the waiting lists aren't a result of the system, it's a result of the amount of people needing and getting treatment.

seriously though, You aren't suggesting we reduce waiting lists by denying some people medical treatment, are you?

 

Why would you call my opinion ill formed or baseless, if you don't know how I formed it or what it is based upon?

No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how free markets work. You're basing the waiting list on the demand, not the variance in supply that a free market allows. The short version is, free markets allocate resources faster and more efficiently than managed markets. The reason being, managed markets do not work on a profit incentive, and do not allow free competition, thus price data is skewed.

If I am an entrepreneur, my talent is to assess market conditions for opportunities. If I can't get an accurate assessment on demand and pricing, I can't make good business decisions. So I end up under-supplying, or over pricing (which is what happens with the government under managed care).

No, I'm suggesting we reduce waiting lists by opening up the market to more providers, at varying price levels, adapting on the fly to market demand, instead of waiting for the Congress or others to pass a Bill to make changes by legislative fiat, and the politicizing of health care (lobbyists, graft) that entails.

Freedom is a good thing. I can't understand why people do not want to trust in themselves and in the opportunity to improve not only their own lot in life, but the lot of others (through capitalism and charity).

 

Ok, So we have privately run hospitals and have treatment bills paid for by the national purse. Best of both worlds.

we get the benefits of the free market and all people have access to it.

The NHS have been testing this for a while and it seems to work well. If you need treatment and there are no places in an NHS hospital the NHS pay for you to go private. Personally i think this system would work well.

My argument isn't against free markets, It's that everybody should get treatment when they need it and as they need it, regardless if they can pay for it.

It's disingenuous to pretend that people for socialised medicine are against freedom. We have socialised police, socialised fire brigade. why not socialised medicine? You wouldn't propose that an old lady who hasn't paid for the fire brigade should burn to death in a house fire, Would you?

 

Uhm, not really. This is still managed care. The government controls access to drugs and services by regulation.

And they distort market pricing (the allocation of resources) by single payer.

Consumers do not actually get a lot of choices to choose from, only the ones the government approves of them to choose from.

It's like Henry Ford's line about his first cars. You can have them in any color, as long as it is black...

This sounds similar (admitting I am not very familiar with your system) to what I wrote about before, with public+private being a pressure release system for "complainers". Now the NHS hospitals, I assume, are run by government. How do you know if there is waste? Fraud? What about customer service? Do the most trained and skilled careworkers gravitate to NHS or private, or does the government price control wages to make it the same? In which case, is one a better working environment over the other?

I get that. It's an argument many people make. Unfortunately (and please don't take this personally, I don't want a flame war), it's not rational.

Health care is not free. You can't walk around in a field, or in the jungle or floating down the river on a log, and drugs magically appear, or surgery occurs while you are sleeping. Health care costs resources to provide. It is in a finite supply. We don't have more beds, nurses, equipment and doctors than there are people. If we did, then health care would be free, because there would be no competition for it. Much like how air is free to breathe, but clean water is not. Water must be cleaned, and that incurs a cost. One day when our air is bad enough that we can't breathe it, we'll have to pay to clean it.

So my point is, everyone should have access, but it is simply not rational (socialism) to assume you can provide for infinite demand with finite resources. Eventually, you have to compromise the quality or availability of supply. That is basically how the USSR domestic economy crashed. Socialism can't calculate prices, and thus can't perform efficiently.

I do agree that in a perfect world, everyone would be covered, or get care, or live forever without ever getting sick or old. But it truly is impossible to maintain, without compromising someone, somewhere.

Which is another notion I reject. Stealing from Peter to pay Tom and John. Theft is theft. It is illegal and immoral.

I don't agree with socialized police or fire brigades. Would you propose we save the old lady if she has money but didn't pay? Do you support the notion of "free riders"?

It's not that simple. I believe that if you take from one to give to another, under threat of imprisonment or violence, that is theft. Whether the government does it with taxes, or I do it with a knife in order to feed my starving children. It's still theft, it's just legalized theft. If you are forced to give up the fruits of your labor to force, that is not a situation where one has freedom.

 

Nice ideological and theoretical argument trying to use rhetoric and fear mongering.

So an extra hour wait (which if we do this right would only happen to non-emergency patients) vs. a several hundred thousand dollar health bill that I can't possibly pay, oh noes!!

I could make an equally lame theoretical and ideological counter argument that it's pretty likely that the danger of dying from not having guaranteed medical attention because you weren't insured is far greater than dying on a waiting list.

But let's deal with facts...

Fact 47 MILLION Americans (and rising) are uninsured. Socialized medicine would mean that every single one of those 47 MILLION people wouldn't have to worry about a major health problem crippling them financially or flat otu not being able to pay for it.

Not to mention the MILLIONS more who are under insured but don't even know it because they are not a lawyer by profession and don't understand every clause in their purposely over complicated insurance policies.

 

Under such a scenario, no plan for state involvement in anything respecting a concept of a social good, in this case, a national plan for health insurance for every citizen, could possibly be embraced.

 

George, you are only looking at one side bro. You're too worried about money, use your head for a second and be thoughtful, it's necessary to understand this next part..

Because of the lack of competition, there would be little innovations in health, yes you would get coverage and get treated, but you will be MEDICALLY TREATED. M-E-D-I-C-A-L-L-Y.

Meaning, if you have one problem, you will be given a pill that causes 5 more. And now you take 5 more pills, and before you know it you have applesauce drooling down your face in a nursing home.

Emergencies? Be a smart person and have some cash reserves. If not, there's a thing called charity, that would happen again if people didn't expect their government to wipe their ass for them.

have a nice day

 

It seems your idealology has overtaken your sanity! I feel for a free market system too buddy and I hate how much the government has stuck its pecker in my wheat crisps but no socialized police or fire brigade!!! MADNESS!!!
Can you imagine the ghettos of violence! Lawless lands of fire and death just down the road from your highrise condo, don't you think they will come for you and the fire will spread to your neighborhood.
No I do not like free loaders but just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are going away. Certain thing in medicine need to be socialized for the same logic. Vaccines for children so that epedemics do not spread to whole populations. Free HIV tests, penicillen for the loose teens so we all don't get the seven year itch. Condoms at the Health Department.
But I have been down this road with you once before and I think I know what your opinion is. Let em all get the 7 year itch and let the old lady and the whole damn neighborhood burn because you are smarter than them and you will be okay. Good for you.

 

Hah, I had a good friend the other day who thought the same thing you did, that everyone should be vaccinated and I asked her more about it and she also said something to the effect of, "nobody should have to be at risk because someone is hard-headed"..

First I called her an idiot, which I'd do again, then I made the common-sensical point that if you are vaccinated already, it doesn't matter what anyone else did.. because you're kinda.. uh.. vaccinated? Why the hell else would you get it if the goal wasn't to be immune to it.

Second point, I told her she was a brainwashed socialist.. She seemed pretty shocked but also didn't know what a socialist meant, she thought it was someone who socialized. She also said the majority of what she knew came from public schooling, and I said something like 'you don't say.'

So we don't talk anymore, I'm kinda glad, I'm tired of stupid people. If you are also as foolish to believe that vaccines should be universal and mandatory for everyone, you are far far from an advocate of free-markets and you should also be aware it is people like yourself that ruin health for everyone else.

 

It's not just crazy brainwashed pinky socialists that are in favor of vaccinations. Diseases mutate, especially if allowed to spread in a large population. Should we just let poor people die of things like Polio or small pox? And then when their families don't claim the body should we just let em rot in the street because to bury them would be socialized funeral service? Where exactly does the idealogical hatred for any social service stop for you guys? Is there anything Nate or Guerrilla thinks qualifies as a social good? Anything that should be socialized for everyones benefit?

 

I didn't say vaccines should be mandatory though. You are attaching the idea of compulsion to it and I am looking at it more as the accessability is a good thing. If you don't want to get your kid vaccinated you don't have to, you just might have to homeschool them, which I assume you would approve of anyway.

 

You're not so bad then, just a little misinformed, I can see you have good intentions, but even if it were so it would be a waste of taxpayer money.

Now what do you have to say about sites like www.vaccinetruth.org or www.vaccinetruth.com

 

Nope. The idea of "socializing" is just a fad for intellectual wannabes. You see it all starts out with people wanting to be sophisticated, because it feeds their ego (we all have one), so people look to the Europeans for the sophistication and grab on to whatever they use.

That's why commercials use people with British accents and phrases like "Swedish mattresses".

I prefer function over form, so while you drink your glass of wine fantasizing of what could be, I already have an understanding of the Laws of Nature which have been around forever.

 

I hope you are being facetious.

Ok, now I know you are being facetious. Good one.

Well, someone can voluntarily pay for this, but I don't believe people should come take some of my money or possessions to pay for it, and if I resist, they beat me, taze me and throw me in jail. That doesn't seem civilized.

I mean, it would be really good if I could have cotton underwear and a fur coat, as well as gold capped teeth. Does that mean I have a right to confiscate some of your wealth to do so?

Not quite. I am continually amazed by the idea that people think that only the government can provide social services. The Red Cross must be constantly heart broken.

Thanks for the laugh!