Socialized medicine, what's wrong with it?

Kizzume

I really don't get the arguments against socialized medicine. Maybe I need to have those arguments told to me differently for me to really get them. Any takers?

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

The argument would be that the government can't do ANYTHING efficient, yet alone medicine.

I think there is SOME truth to it, just as there is some truth to the capitalist theory that business incentive and competition makes a better product. The problem is that businesses are also for PROFIT, unlike government. And is disease something we should allow others to profit off of?

I may have voted too soon on this one. i may be for total socialization of medicine. But then, I'd like to try out moving to the left on medicine a little slower (but still doing it.) Let's start by some basic regulations-- and subsidizing-- of our current healthcare providers and see if we can get everybody affordable health care. I don't really like doctors, just as I definitely do not like insurance companies, but I believe their presence MAY have some benefit. Again, the incentive of business to create a great product has some validity to it.

Just as UPS is better than the postal service.

Just as greyhound is better than metro.

But, you pay for it!

Then again, keep in mind that privatization, like now, means we don't get to vote on it. If we socialize it, then the people will have say on how the health care system works. We have complete control over something when it is nationalized. We don't if it belongs to a greedy conglomerate.

So for now, lets see if we can't make good with regulation and subsidies. If that fails, I am for going further left with it. But right now, it is way too far to the right in how it (doesn't) work(s).

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

Little is wrong with socialized medicine. In most cases, it provides more than adequate health coverage. The United States is only one of few modern western civilized countries that does not use a universal healthcare system, and it's own system isn't actually superior unless you are rolling in money or happen to have a very good employer healthplan--plans employers loathe paying and endeavour to weasel out of.

People whine about long lines, but this often isn't true; it's true of highly rural areas, not major ones, and secondly, it deals with non-life threatening services. Socialized healthcare, is, as it should be, based on rationing and utility, not who can jump the line for minor shit while others stand behind them unable to pay, thus unable to get the necessary treatments.

The US system also is not cost-effective, as the health of the average US citizen is not vastly superior to Canadian or European health, given they tend to spend less per capita on care than Americans. Moreover, if you compare the administrative overhead in the US system compared to Canada's, you will find the US is far more wasteful and costs more.

Again, insurance companies find ways all the time to drop you or put limits on you, and they don't make money by paying out. If they can get out of paying you, which they oft do, then you are shit out of luck pal.

Kizzume · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject:

To me, when the goal is making money, the greed of humankind will always be triumphant. When the goal is helping people, the greed of humankind will cause problems, but it will not be triumphant.

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

I agree with Technocrat's assesment. And its true-- health care is only "the best" here if you have a ton of damn money.

Also, am I the only person who has had to wait in line for medical treatment in America? I have never been to an emergency room where I didn't have to wait, and that includes when they thought I was having an ulcer and another time when I had a tremor attack.

chuq · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 135 Location: Gulf South

There is nothing wrong with socialized medicine. Only when you start discussing it, there always comes to the subject of cash.....seldom is the benefit of the people any concern. The money would be there any abuses would be from the money hungry doctors and hospitals.....you know kinda like the $60 hammers of the Defense Dept. IMO, we should worry more about the abuses and how to stop them. The plan would then be successful.

archangelm · Joined: 07 Dec 2007 Posts: 49 Location: Ohio

Kizzume · Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject:

Interesting--I need to research that more.

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

I like that idea Arch. The problem I have with it is only the other side of the coin; competition doesn't always have the intended effect.

Competition also increases the mentality to cut back expenses. The private insurance company would then have reason to push generic drugs over new cutting edge medicines, (making the cutting-edge reason to keep private companies pointless), and more importantly, it may encourage them to deny legitimate claims, putting all the expensive emergency treatments back on the government, and causing the system to be very slow for those who ONLY have government insurance.

Another problem; if we have 2 choices for health care, one being the government, the other being company a, does that mean the person who goes with company A has to pay taxes which go to health care AND still pay, additionally, for their own provider? And if not, then where will the government get its funding? Will the rich people go with the private insurers, leaving the poor with underfunded health care? Surely if the poor and homeless are the only people paying taxes in regards to universal health care, it won't go well. On the other hand, if we are to give the option of private insurance, is it necessarily fair to double-bill people who don't want to go through the government?

I am not saying I disagree with you, just pointing out some potential set-backs of having government and private insurance companies compete with each other.