> Oh noes! It’s Socialism! Except it isn’t. It’s a government insurance scheme
> where the price is kept low by running it at cost.
Except it is! That’s exactly what economic socialism (of the Marxist variety)
is. Euphemistically calling it a ‘mixed-economy’ (such as in india) does not
make it *not* Socialist.
You mean like what the USA already had? A system where the poorest people and indeed many middle class people and the private healthcare system used and abused the emergency medical system to the tune of effectively DOUBLING the healthcare cost of the average american while providing and inferior penetration of care?
And you think that the way to fix that is to simply toss the poorest people out on the street DESPITE me pointing out that the USA’s housing boom and economic collapse of major companies such as GM effectively boiled down to healthcare.
The real joke here is that had the US government actually properly socialised it’s medical system a la UK Or Canada or France then the USA’s medical system would be just as good and cost half as much to the tax payer. A saving in effect of 300 BILLION dollars and a unified system of care where care across the USA is held to the same standard and a system by which you can integrate healthcare with social health and encourage ideas such as healthy eating and nutritional supplementation.
You want to see what socialised medicine is like? Check out the Finnish Baby Box. Simple, Elegant Usage of Public Wealth to Stop Disease and Death.
Your argument is that somehow eliminating the one safety net for the poorest that the private sector will somehow pull through and be super cheap and everyone will be incredibly healthy. Not that emergency medicine as a field will effectively tank since you have to do wallet biopsies and the poorest Americans in effect will always be saddled with debts the moment they fall ill which they are more likely to since they work in more undesirable jobs, eat worse food and it’s a deadly cycle.
The main attraction of Socialism for rationalists is that it *claims* to
promote efficiency, leading to lower overall costs. However, decades of bitter
experience of failure in other fields (railways, telecom, electricity, you
name it) naturally leads one to be circumspect about its efficacy in this
Except Healthcare has repeatedly demonstrated how effective it is. Even the complaints about the NHS bloat still make the system MORE effective than what the USA’s got. If the bloated wallowing behmoth that is the NHS is some sort of failure then it’s less of one than the US healthcare system. At a cost of 50% of the USA it provides a healthcare system comparable to the american private sector without having to worry about a wallet biopsy.
It can be made more effective and that can be done by actually training some doctors in management rather than using businessmen who don’t understand how hospitals run. In fact it’s problem is that the NHS has sectors of it’s work privatised leading to ineffectiveness.
Once there were matrons who controlled cleanliness. Now? It’s a private company. Once there was an NHS catering service and the NHS actively bargained for food and could control quality. The sterilisation and waste disposal? Once were NHS? Again privatised. These are all places where costs went up and efficiency went down. People began treating the NHS as some sort of goal machine rather than something that treats people and that is where you FORGET how to be a health system.
The USA’s health system is one part health machine and 99 parts goal related. And that goal is the worst of all.
That is, only if one isn’t a red pom-pom waving blatant Socialist cheerleader
And also living in the real world.
In both child mortality and life expectancy socialised medicine actually “wins”. So I don’t know what scale of achievement you are using but universal healthcare beats treating only those who can afford it. Because most people cannot afford it and unfortunately reality requires “most people” to exist to keep it working.
The many misdirections and slanders employed by your rebuttal to Ms Somers’
rhetoric make your argument even less credible than hers (if that is even
possible). To think that I came to this page looking for a good response to MS
Good bye, sir, and good riddance!
What misdirection? She’s an actress. I am a medic. If you asked me to wire up your house then prepare to be disappointed as your house goes up in flames. IMHO she’s a worse at medical advice than my dog since my dog isn’t running around on the Internet telling people to diet their cancer away.
Do you need me to explain to you how cancer cells are effectively “99..999% Our Cells” and anything that kills them kills us too and how therapy is about effectively removing the cancer cells or destroying them focally? And that diet has bugger all to do with fighting “Cancer”?
Or that she is pushing for a branch of “alternative” medicine that is widely regarded as quackery since it has absolutely no basis in reality or any scientific backing?
Do you need me to point out that her statements in effect contribute to a small percentage of treatable cancer sufferers dying due to poor adherence to medicine and refusal to use real medical care or doing things that effectively hasten their demise?
No. Because we know all of this. You want to argue that universal healthcare is worse than what America has? Then evidence. Every single statistic shows Universal Healthcare to be superior and every single statistic shows that public Universal Healthcare schemes beat privatised ones in cost and effectiveness.
Unless the WHO doesn’t know anything about healthcare and life expectancy and infant mortality rare not valid determinants of quality of healthcare or availability. In which case we should just determine who has the best healthcare system by the broodiness of it’s tall, dark and handsome doctors who happen to have blogs and are bald.
If that’s the case then I am a shoe in…. (maybe may need some platform shoes).