Knights & Knaves Alehouse

-Communism: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership.

OK I see what your getting at. I broke the two apart (socialism= govt. control of private sector / Communism govt. =contrl/ownership of everything).

Yes, doctors in a US socialist medical system would likely be worse. I know alot of guys got out of it with the crappy HMOs. GPs Treated like less then dirt and payed less for it. Why go into medicine if you can make more as a chiropractor, attorney etc. with a hell of a lot less training required (ie. no 100K student loan) (and much less malpractice risk). Anyway, people are motivated by greed and money...yes even good people (its called security). Want a top notch specialist -go to the USA.

As far as the health of populations in Europe, you'd need to consider all factors (not just health care system) diet for one. Anyway, what countries have free market health care systems in Europe, do any?

I'm surprised the orig. US Con. didn't address the need for a standing police force (didn't European nations like England and France already have such entities operating outside of the rule of their general military, something to use as a template? Perhaps the topic was avoided just to get the damned thing signed by all colonies?

AxeMental wrote:-Communism: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership.

OK I see what your getting at. I broke the two apart (socialism= govt. control of private sector / Communism govt. =ownership of everything).

More like (in very broad strokes)

Socialism: Public ownership and control of production and distribution of goods.

Communism: Public ownership and control of production and distribution of goods, and public ownership of said goods.

I used public instead of government because the latter includes a built-in mindset of "us vs. them," whereas we're talking about principles.

These terms are also not absolutes. Not every institution in a socialist state need be socialized. The problems you seem to have with the idea of socialized medicine aren't so much the principle as the implementation, which is quite understandable. Socialized medicine does not guarantee quack doctors, but it doesn't automatically provide them, either. It's just a principle.

SC: "The problems you seem to have with the idea of socialized medicine aren't so much the principle as the implementation, which is quite understandable. Socialized medicine does not guarantee quack doctors, but it doesn't automatically provide them, either. It's just a principle."

I agree, government does need to play its role (co-ordinating, testing, keeping standards in development and practise (which IMHO should replace civil law suites, if the doc/hospital royaly screws up once, those involved can find a new line of work), making sure the poor are gotten care etc. But, once you open the door to "universal" (ie. free) your talking another animal.

Why is the screaming for "free universal healthcare" rather then "lower the cost of health insurance". Back when we were kids (in the 80s) doctors owned their own businesses, you could afford to go to the hospital (even stay) and most everyone could afford health insurance (those that didn't basically got free care-actually still done today). Back then: no HMOs, few law suites, less testing costs to develop new meds, etc. etc.

Instead of "change" why not "change back"?

Socialized medicine will be a disaster for those who are ill or will ever become ill.

Socialized medicine will lead to rationing of medical care....it has to.
The govenrment wil decide what procedures will be paid for, what drugs you can have etc.

There is a reason Canadians and others come to the U.S. for medical care. It is the best in both quality and speed of care.

Talk to those who fear they have cancer in Canada---they need to wait months to receive even proper diagnostics. That is the future under socialized medicine.

As an aside did all of you see "Puff Daddy" Daschle had to withdraw his name for Sec. of HHS? Interesting that those who want to raise everyone's taxes don't pay any?

The implementation is key, and as a practical matter we're looking always at some mixture of private and public direction.

My impression is that Veterans Administration hospitals have tended to provide good service when run to an extent by veterans for veterans, and to the rest by members of the same organization. "Privatizing" operations seems to have led to declines in quality, in some cases scandalous. It makes sense that the degree to which people see their interests aligned, see each other as fellows, might affect how they treat each other.

One problem Britain has been through was allowing doctors to work both for the NHS and in private practice. The incentives effectively encouraged people to give their best only in the latter context (while leeching public resources).

Canada's public medical system (like California's public schools) has suffered from problems due to locally dependent funding often simply exacerbated by increasingly centralized policy making. At their worst, such disparities end up in effect subsidizing the rich at the expense of the poor.

At the end of the day, I think what matters most is the prevailing value system. An emphasis on aggrandizing oneself at the expense of others is not conducive to a policy of loving kindness founded on respect and compassion. Even a simple foundation of self-respect based on excellence in one's vocation seems to me far superior to a measure of worth by the dollar.

Ska wrote:Talk to those who fear they have cancer in Canada---they need to wait months to receive even proper diagnostics. That is the future under socialized medicine.

Actually, my mother, my father, my sister, and I all were tested and diagnosed within days. My father's "cancer" is somehow treatable with creams (I'll never know the truth because I have to get the information out of my father, and he tends to dumb everything down), and my mother's was surgically removed. (My sister and I were both negative.)

They got rid of some facilities to save money. We actually had them, but they were sold off. There were two particular machines in Manitoba some years ago -- I can't remember the specifics anymore, or what the machines were called -- but because they weren't being used to their full potentials, one of them was done away with. The brainiacs who came up with that plan figured the other machine could handle 150% of its actual capacities.

Bad medicine is due to budget cutting performed by people unwilling to cut themselves.

And now, an anecdotal story that should be a joke, but isn't: My friend was a porter in a hospital. He and a nurse were taking turns performing heart compressions on an emergency patient one day when he got an order to go see someone in management, "stat!" When they say "stat," that means "drop everything, emergency." So he left the nurse to continue by herself, and rushed to the office. The manager needed him to get her a new clipboard. She didn't know what "stat" meant when she said it.

Sometimes, the wrong people are in charge.

I recently read ab article about the fact that economist are predicting that the health insurance companies are the next branch of the economy that may be requesting a bailout. When presented with the govt. mandate that they cover patients with pre-existing cconditions that start going on about how they will either have to cut the services that they cover or they will drastically have to raise their rates which gets everybody and their brother voting against such a mandate. My experience under the isurance system is that Medicare and Medicaid both have granted my family the ability to seek treatments that the insurance companies wouldn't cover. I am not talking about HMO's either these were PPO's, etc.

No offense to anyone but who really is better at deciding what healthcare you receive anyways? A govt. pencil pusher or a corprate bean counter? Seems like six of one and half dozen of the other. Until the govt. rules that your doctor knows what treatment is best for you neither the public or the private sectors systems is going to work, we have put our medical care in the hands of accountants regardless of the system we choose.

Stonegiant wrote:
No offense to anyone but who really is better at deciding what healthcare you receive anyways? A govt. pencil pusher or a corprate bean counter? Seems like six of one and half dozen of the other. Until the govt. rules that your doctor knows what treatment is best for you neither the public or the private sectors systems is going to work, we have put our medical care in the hands of accountants regardless of the system we choose.

Well Said!

The British NHS used to be a lot better when it was run that way. Now it has huge amounts of admin staff to run Thatcherite/New Labour system of "competitiveness".

Axemental - I agree about a system being needed to replace lawsuits. Not only does litigation raise costs (whether in a private or public system) but it also forces hospitials to implement protocals - effectively prescribing treatment based on legal/medical guidelines rather than medical first prinicples. Both the US and the UK have this problem.

You are factually mistaken that all medical advances have come form the American system - many have come from work done in Europe and many medical advances were made in Communist regimes too (and with the fall o Communism many companies rushed in to buy them up).

Cloning medicines is a phenomen that occurs in developing countries that cannot afford Western medicinces - it is entirely another issue from public healthcare in developed nations.

I think those that say that a public system eliminates competition in research and medical advances are missing an important point: public healtchare BUYS medicine from pharmaceutical companies and equipment from private companies - and waht company wouldn't want a fat juicy Government contract? (the US uses this system to provide military hardware - and look at all the hi-tech toys they've got).

Stormcrow wrote: More like (in very broad strokes)

Socialism: Public ownership and control of production and distribution of goods.

Communism: Public ownership and control of production and distribution of goods, and public ownership of said goods.

I used public instead of government because the latter includes a built-in mindset of "us vs. them," whereas we're talking about principles.

A better reason to use "public" rather than "government" might be that communism, and many forms of socialism, seek the abolition of government and the state itself.

I might also point out that Marx never called for public ownership of goods - only capital. The entire product of the worker's labour was supposed to belong to that worker, without any of it being skimmed for taxes, profits, etc.

Werral wrote: You are factually mistaken that all medical advances have come form the American system - many have come from work done in Europe and many medical advances were made in Communist regimes too (and with the fall o Communism many companies rushed in to buy them up).).

What I said was this: Thats why most of the commercial advancements in medicine start in free markets (like the USA). And without that free market workhorse the socialists nations that use (either copy or buy direct) that technology would have never gotten it to begin with.

Note I state "commercial advancements" (for sale and working rather then in theory only)" and "in free markets (like the USA)"

-W, I didn't say ONLY the USA, I'm well aware German, England, France and the rest of the European nations have made probably more contributions to medicine (and with their own companies) in the last 100 years. I only used the USA as an example of one that operates in a relatively free market (at least I imagine).



You said: " and waht company wouldn't want a fat juicy Government contract?"

Military contracts are a bad comparison. THe medical world is far more vast and has far more need for creativity. Plus we aren't trying to develop the next B-2 bomber (and having 3 or 4 companies bid on who can do it the cheapest) were trying to create 1000s of new medications and technical advances and racing to do so while people are literally dieing as they waite (uniting the work of universities, hospitals and private research labs). I'm sure someone like BPoM could could get into this in more detail (I think he's actually in this field).

And I didn't even get into the topic SKA was mentioning (rationing medicine) who gets what medicine, and what test and when. My arguements are more to do with quality of people and future development in medical technology.

I think the key is realizing 1. the government created a medical system that was unaffordable starting at least in the mid 70s (piling on regulation, red tape, no cap to law suites, HMOs, rediculase testing periods and costs, etc. etc. etc.) and 2. are now ready to take it over. It was a master plan 35 years in the making, and its about to come to fruition.

Can it be stopped. No.

AxeMental wrote:-
I'm surprised the orig. US Con. didn't address the need for a standing police force (didn't European nations like England and France already have such entities operating outside of the rule of their general military, something to use as a template? Perhaps the topic was avoided just to get the damned thing signed by all colonies?

I'm not surprised, up to that point in history pretty much any national level police force was used to oppress the citizenry and enforce the rule of those in power. The U.S. constitution really was about government being part of the power of the citizenry not to shore up a ruling class.

Ska wrote: As an aside did all of you see "Puff Daddy" Daschle had to withdraw his name for Sec. of HHS? Interesting that those who want to raise everyone's taxes don't pay any?

One set of rules for the oligarchy another for the masses.

Obama said "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say 'OK.' "

Obama in the whitehouse -
"Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat. After all, it's freezing cold out there" and as White House senior advisor David Axelrod reminded us, "He's from Hawaii, O.K," adding that "He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there."

THEY, get to do what they want, we pay ever increasing bills for less and less.

JDJarvis wrote:

AxeMental wrote:-
I'm surprised the orig. US Con. didn't address the need for a standing police force (didn't European nations like England and France already have such entities operating outside of the rule of their general military, something to use as a template? Perhaps the topic was avoided just to get the damned thing signed by all colonies?

I'm not surprised, up to that point in history pretty much any national level police force was used to oppress the citizenry and enforce the rule of those in power. The U.S. constitution really was about government being part of the power of the citizenry not to shore up a ruling class.

Yes, early law enforcement WAS private. Britain set up a police force after the American and French revolutions to prevent the same thing happening on British soil (there were attempts - riots involving mobs armed with pikes, muskets and even a cannon or two).

Look up E.P.Thompsons "The Making of the English Working Class" or research British Radicalism and see what I mean.

AxeMental wrote: What I said was this: Thats why most of the commercial advancements in medicine start in free markets (like the USA). And without that free market workhorse the socialists nations that use (either copy or buy direct) that technology would have never gotten it to begin with.

Okay, it's just that in other posts you call socialist pretty much any country with a a public healthcare system (so all of Europe, Canada etc...)

AxeMental wrote: Note I state "commercial advancements" (for sale and working rather then in theory only)" and "in free markets (like the USA)"

-W, I didn't say ONLY the USA, I'm well aware German, England, France and the rest of the European nations have made probably more contributions to medicine (and with their own companies) in the last 100 years. I only used the USA as an example of one that operates in a relatively free market (at least I imagine).

Treatments developed in socialist countries are actually used even if they aren't marketed in other nations. So they are not merely theoretical advances.

AxeMental wrote: Military contracts are a bad comparison. THe medical world is far more vast and has far more need for creativity. Plus we aren't trying to develop the next B-2 bomber (and having 3 or 4 companies bid on who can do it the cheapest) were trying to create 1000s of new medications and technical advances and racing to do so while people are literally dieing as they waite (uniting the work of universities, hospitals and private research labs). I'm sure someone like BPoM could could get into this in more detail (I think he's actually in this field).

That's why I included both the military and NASA (which is technically part of the military). A huge amount of creativity is poured into the military - look at the advances in AI, software, surveilance and all kinds of other things. Even the internet we're using now was originally developed by the US military.

AxeMental wrote: And I didn't even get into the topic SKA was mentioning (rationing medicine) who gets what medicine, and what test and when. My arguements are more to do with quality of people and future development in medical technology.

"Rationing" only exists insofar as what is actually "free" (paid for by the state). The option is available to top-up state care with private care (there was some ridiculous legislation against this in the UK, but it was pretty quickly removed after a public outcry). Even though you may be buying a drug privately you can still consult a publicly paid doctor for free - and that doctor can even monitor your progress/set doses and so forth on the private drug.

Future technology is a seperate field and ties into how research is managed/funded. It is unconnected with whether point of use healtcare is public or not.

Quality of doctors is also not affected - it can be, if the State service is badly run, just as it can be if the private sector enters a difficult period. But it can (and in many countries is) well run by the state.

AxeMental wrote: I think the key is realizing 1. the government created a medical system that was unaffordable starting at least in the mid 70s (piling on regulation, red tape, no cap to law suites, HMOs, rediculase testing periods and costs, etc. etc. etc.) and 2. are now ready to take it over. It was a master plan 35 years in the making, and its about to come to fruition.

Can it be stopped. No.

Point one are all problems that affect public healthcare as much as private - see the UK for example - similar increases in legislation, similar increases in cost. Point 2 - I just don't see it as part of some grand conspiracy - what would the Government get out of it?

The US spends more per capita than ANY NATION IN THE WORLD on healtchare and yet many Americans do not have access to healthcare.

I actually agree that a lot of the Obama plan sounds like a bad idea though for exactly the opposite reasons to yours: public healthcare would be more efficient than simply regulating the private sector. The US should set up an NHS.

Things like putting caps on litigation and using generic drugs and imported medicines are a good idea though.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Stonegiant wrote:No offense to anyone but who really is better at deciding what healthcare you receive anyways? A govt. pencil pusher or a corprate bean counter?

A govt. pencil pusher. My mother has worked as a nurse for almost 30 years. Profit is made by charging the most possible and delivering the least possible - just a little bit more than is thought would lead to a law suit. She's semi-retired now and she's a lot happier. She hated working within the parameters set by the corporate bean counters. And, for those who think this is political, she's a voting Republican in favor of socialized medicine. It's one of the few things we agree upon.

joe b.