next »

[acrimone]

You haven't given me any numbers or studies to show that quality of care is worse in socialized medicine countries than it is here, and the experts I've read say that this argument also doesn't hold up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2006/08/07/nhealth06.xml&sSheet=/health/2006/08/07/ixhmain.html

Thanks, but is that the best you can do?

From the article:
"A spokesman for the hospital and the PCT insisted that no one was denied urgent treatment, adding: "This is a local issue. It doesn't have national significance.""

That's what the Politburo said about the Solidarity movement in Poland.

[scientiffikk]

You haven't given me any numbers or studies to show that quality of care is worse in socialized medicine countries than it is here, and the experts I've read say that this argument also doesn't hold up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2006/08/07/nhealth06.xml&sSheet=/health/2006/08/07/ixhmain.html

Thanks, but is that the best you can do?

From the article:
"A spokesman for the hospital and the PCT insisted that no one was denied urgent treatment, adding: "This is a local issue. It doesn't have national significance.""

That's what the Politburo said about the Solidarity movement in Poland.

So, you are skeptical.  Fair enough.  I don't really understand the funding situation described in that article.  Clearly, it is a problem in that region or hospital and needs to be remedied.  But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.  Do you really think that urgent treatment is denied?  A doctor solving Sudoku will turn away a heart attack or car accident victim?  I can't believe that.

I have a friend who is a former hospital administrator, here in the U.S.  He told me that the hospital made the most money when it had the most empty beds.  How, I have no idea, but it sounds like a similar situation to the UK article.  He was under great pressure to move patients out as quickly as possible, even if they weren't quite ready to leave.  How's that for the insurance companies and hospitals having the patients, sorry, customers best interest in mind?

[trentsands]

I also think that the current debate about universal healthcare lacks some imagination.  The typical view of universal healthcare is that the entire medical system is run by the government and is entirely free.  This is prohibitive in terms of cost, structural organization (imagine the difficulty of building a system similar to public education, from the ground up, almost instantly), and in term of the US's economic philosophy (we prefer private business, overall, when possible, not government-owned organizations).

But I don't see why a universal healthcare system cannot be produced that acknowledges private industry for doctors, clinics, and hospitals.  Likely, prices would still be controlled in this situation, but doctors can still act on their sense of private industry by providing better service, which, arguably, will draw in more patients, even in a universal system, than the doctor who provides lesser service.

As for preventing frivolous overuse of a universal healthcare system (a problem perceived for instance in Canada, where, as happy as the Canadians I know seem with their healthcare system, does cause very significant wait times for important procedures), A co-pay can still be used so that the individual must think about whether it is worth paying a little bit out of pocket for their condition.  This can be set low enough so that most can afford it but high enough that very many won't consider it insignificant.

For heaven's sake, where disagreement exists, compromise is possible to address at least most parties' concerns.

[cgfunmathguy]

OK, cgfunmathguy, I don't think it's fair of you to say that if I reject your pilgrim explanation that I'm not serious about understanding your point.  I seriously want to know why you think that it would be such a terrible thing for the US to move towards socialized medicine, like every other industrialized nation.  I don't think I'm being dense, but I haven't really gotten a sense of why you feel this way.  All of your reasoning thus far has been anecdotal at best, and to me, illogical. 

I believe I answered this once and in a logical manner. However, you have seen fit to ignore. I, of course, see no reason to repeat it, but I probably will going through the rest of this.

I've read materials from PhD economists that have analyzed the costs of paying taxes for national health care vs. paying in the current manner, and the idea that national health care would be more expensive doesn't hold up to a careful analysis.  I believe this to be true.

I have also read materials from PhD economists that state definitively that tax revenues CANNOT go up if taxes are cut. However, it has happened three times in recent US history. The most recent occurrence was during President Bush's tax cuts. An article published by the New York Times (not exactly one of the President's friends) last year noted the extreme increase in tax revenues and credited it to the President's TAX CUTS. This was the explanation given by the same PhD economists that said it CANNOT happen. So I don't believe anything a PhD economist tells me about anything. As a matter of fact, if a PhD economist told me the sun was shining, I would go outside and check for myself.

That a doctor in a one-payer system would give you lower quality care than in an insurance payer/patient payer system (as it is now) doesn't make sense to me.

A doctor is willing to treat anyone who can pay for the procedure (however that may be done). That is not the issue. It's not the doctor's choice when I get the MRI (for example). The doctor prescribes the MRI. The government (or other single payer) decides whether to cover it and when it will happen. If it doesn't happen that day, quality of care is compromised. Period. If the experts you've read say that this argument doesn't hold up, then you are not reading all the experts. I have read "expert" opinion on both sides of this. Try reading the GAO reports about quality of care at all VA institutions if you want to know what a "government-as-single-payer" system will look like.

The profit motive argument, where a patient goes shopping for another insurance company, is not realistic, as I've pointed out, because of the prohibitive costs (to most US citizens), ...

This is garbage. If I took the money my employer takes out of my check to buy health insurance, I could buy adequate care on my own. Add the employer's share to it, and I'd have great care where I call the shots. If you are going to demand numbers, you better supply some to support your argument, too.

...and the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

There are LAWS related to the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. It is no longer a blanket denial. So, this does not wash.

This argument also fall flat when a patient needs urgent care.  If you go the the doctor and are told that you need a surgical procedure immediately, are you really going to shop at every hospital in the region for the cheapest surgery?  Theoretically you could, but realistically, a competitive market for life-saving surgery doesn't exist.

No patient is denied "urgent care". That is why emergency rooms are overrun these days. If people go to the emergency room, they must be cared for, whether they have insurance or not. What are you going to do when your doctor says you need "life-saving" surgery and some bureaucrat denies coverage because you are too old, not in good enough health to worry about saving, a smoker, a registered sex offender, etc.? The extremely rare cases where it happens now causes national news stories. Those news stories (but not the incidents) will disappear once the government takes over health care.

So you got a bad doctor at the VA, ...

You can't read, apparently. I did not get a bad doctor; I got a good, conscientious doctor who was trying to get a full diagnosis. What I got was a bad system that due to lack of resources, lack of will, or whatever else, took six weeks to schedule the MRI my doctor prescribed. That is not the doctor's fault. She was doing her job very well. This is what I believe will happen to the entire health-care system should the government take it over. Again, if you want evidence what this system will look like, read the GAO reports on veteran's health care. They are really illuminating reading.

You've already given me the economic growth argument, but as I mentioned, that argument doesn't work when you consider growth of communist China.

Oh, yes. Communist China is a shining example to the world. My economy would be booming if the average worker in my country made $6.50 a day too. I used Europe for an example because their wages, standards of living, etc., are more comparable to the US than China is. Let's compare apples and apples, shall we?

How about quality of life issues?  Personal security in health care and retirement seem to be pretty important measures of a successful system of government, in my opinion. 

Not in mine. As I said before, I'm a libertarian. Get the government out of my life, and keep it out. My personal security in health and retirement is my responsibility, not the government's. If it is their responsibility, they can tell me how to live it and how much health care I get. I don't want that, and I can't find anywhere in the Constitution where it says they should. Government is NOT responsible for my happiness, I AM.

[pyshnov]

Why Soviet system collapsed?

1. Before my eyes, a "director" of meat store was saying: "Enough of state property. Now it's my store." And so said all other managers. They started the exchange: meat goes to laundromat manager, cheese - to local union, union raises salary to meat manager, etc. Shelves displayed no products to me.
2. Socialist propaganda was openly ridiculed, by Party members and KGB also openly. Terrible jokes about Lenin were told aloud on subway.
3. And then, the main thing happened. Gorbachev met Bush Sr. on a military ship in Mediterranean and they agreed. US by this time was half socialist. Soviets were going capitalist. Then, for a few years US tried not to let Russia to become really capitalist. Clinton issued warning: "America will not tolerate retributions against communists in Russia". Very funny. US supplied huge money to the 7 "oligarchs", they were to introduce corporations and computers when Russia needed cows and lettuce. Armand Hammer (a pseudonym meaning "arm and hammer" - commie symbol, you see it on baking soda), the personal friend of Lenin, became again very active as well as many other communist-billionaires. They failed.
4. Russia is going democratic and independent which bothers some very much. The next target before France becomes a target?

scientiffik:

I don't quite understand your point, are you saying the US is a socialist country?  Or that US corporations are socialist entities?  Or that it is better to NOT be socialist as a nation?

Corporations are a tool toward socialism. Left says they make "huge" profits, it's a lie. Left is thriving with corporations and wants them to obey govt. completely, wants them to play "social" role even more, and wants the salaried managers to realize that they really are no more than employees. Creating the World of Employees. America, however, needs the World of (independent) Producers. Huge difference!

As for corruption, I consider a government that collects tax dollars, then uses those dollars to hire private corporations with political connections (usually using no-bid contracts) to do the government's business (with no accountability) as highly corrupt.  I consider a government that places people with political motives and little expertise in charge of government agencies that determine how billions of dollars are spent as corrupt.  I consider a government that silences scientists who find results that go against the current ruler's political goals as corrupt.  This is the system we have in place now in the US.  I really can't imagine a socialist country (like Canada or Denmark) as being more corrupt.

Of course, it's a socialist corruption.
1. Democracy, everyone says, is not a perfect system. But I add: democracy is a perfect system for crooks. For the whole century they were learning how to make it work for them. Now there is only choice: abolish electing political parties, electing individuals who will just serve the will of majority as recorded with the help of computer voting. A wishful thinking so far.
2. The health care (may be the most needed thing to be accomplished by a nation) is entrusted in US to the, by far, most corrupt sector of the economy - to the Insurance. It has to be either completely private or completely governmental. The most corrupt situation is when the two are mixed. The prices demanded by corporations-suppliers is - corruption and blackmail. If health is governmental business, it should be so in all aspects.

This is possible:

Tax must be collected not from the profit figure (which lost its meaning through manipulation) but from the sales figure.
Govt. doesn't need to know how you run your business, what is your profit. Business is not about how much you bought, but how much you sold. So, tax should become a sales tax only. For the individual employees, sales figure is all their salary, they sold their labor; again, no exemptions.
The percentage of tax on sales figure will be small, as sales are much greater than the present profit figure, to get the same revenue. It should be introduced gradually, in some 5-7 years. A corporation that used to report $100 mln. in sales and $100 mln spent, with no profit and no taxes, will be brought back to sanity very fast.

[dark_globe]

There are two different questions as I see it, Pyshnov.

1. Why did socialism fail in the Soviet Union? The Communist Party and the pseudo-socialist system in the Soviet Union collapsed because of much of what you say.

2. Why did the Soviet Union disband into 15 separate, independent nations instead of remaining a "union" after the failure of socialism? The "collapse" of the Soviet Union as a multinational empire was due to nationalist aspirations of states such as Lithuania, Armenia, and Georgia.

As my research and publishing concerns the latter question, I naturally answer the question "why did the Soviet Union collapse?" from that perspective. The questions are certainly interrelated but they are separate issues.

[scientiffikk]

So I don't believe anything a PhD economist tells me about anything. As a matter of fact, if a PhD economist told me the sun was shining, I would go outside and check for myself.

Yet, you seem to believe anything coming from Bill O'Rielly, Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity.  You seem to believe hypothetical non-realistic market forces are the solution, and that anecdotal evidence trumps scientific and statistical analysis.

Based on this and your turn to nastiness, I'm done talking to you.

Peace.

[menotti]

As far as calling Italy, Canada, France, and Germany failures, ...

I did not call them "failures". I did say that, in regards to health care, their systems aren't working. If you want a better explanation of why socialism doesn't work in health care, consider the VA Medical System, to which I was subjected for eight years. I had a car accident and suffered a concussion. My VA doctor, a very conscientious sort, ordered an MRI to diagnose severity, etc. SIX WEEKS LATER, I had the MRI, which showed nothing. (Gee, I wonder why?) This is the actual working of a socialized health-care system, not the pie-in-the-sky model. It doesn't work.

There is evidence that VA quality is actually better than fee-for-service, e.g. N Engl J Med. 2003 May 29;348(22):2218-27.

[pyshnov]

dark_globe,

If you do research in this area, I beg you not to believe most of the other "research" as the political passions here are so hot they make the weirdest choice of facts and give them crazy interpretation all the time. These political passions are about the fate and the future of the World: Russia's failure to sustain socialism had hit hard on the minds.

In your first question you use "pseudo-socialism". Trust me, they tried everything to make it a genuine one. In the West now some explain the failure by saying "Russia was technologically a backward place. Now we can do it better." Wrong! The matter is not technology; socialism would only be possible if all people were "conscientious", but then no socialism would be needed! Socialism is about imposing it on people who are not "conscientious", and that would need more policemen than the number of people in the population.

2. Why did the Soviet Union disband into 15 separate, independent nations instead of remaining a "union" after the failure of socialism? The "collapse" of the Soviet Union as a multinational empire was due to nationalist aspirations of states such as Lithuania, Armenia, and Georgia.

I can only give you some facts as I saw them. Gorbachev had a program worked together with US. US initially wanted Soviet Union to remain as a whole and under Gorbachev because there was such a good understanding. But Gorbachev failed to deliver. When uprising for independence started in Baltics, he went to Crimea leaving the order to apply any force necessary; he did not want to participate personally in the bloodbath..., cared for his image. In Crimea he had contact with the West through Canadian Macdonald's CEO, G. Cohon. But, the guys remaining in Moscow laughed at Gorbachev's instructions and grabbed power. Gorbachev returned finished. CCCP fell apart and this required a new US policy.

Excessive to say, socialism did wrongs to the small nations, but of course the main acting factor was simply that in these places there appeared an opportunity for the people in power to become Heads of State. People don't miss such opportunities. And the examples were all around there, independence without a fear of invasion by Russians, full support from the West, 24/7 world press coverage, etc.

[dark_globe]

dark_globe,

If you do research in this area, I beg you not to believe most of the other "research" as the political passions here are so hot they make the weirdest choice of facts and give them crazy interpretation all the time. These political passions are about the fate and the future of the World: Russia's failure to sustain socialism had hit hard on the minds.

In your first question you use "pseudo-socialism". Trust me, they tried everything to make it a genuine one. In the West now some explain the failure by saying "Russia was technologically a backward place. Now we can do it better." Wrong! The matter is not technology; socialism would only be possible if all people were "conscientious", but then no socialism would be needed! Socialism is about imposing it on people who are not "conscientious", and that would need more policemen than the number of people in the population.

2. Why did the Soviet Union disband into 15 separate, independent nations instead of remaining a "union" after the failure of socialism? The "collapse" of the Soviet Union as a multinational empire was due to nationalist aspirations of states such as Lithuania, Armenia, and Georgia.

I can only give you some facts as I saw them. Gorbachev had a program worked together with US. US initially wanted Soviet Union to remain as a whole and under Gorbachev because there was such a good understanding. But Gorbachev failed to deliver. When uprising for independence started in Baltics, he went to Crimea leaving the order to apply any force necessary; he did not want to participate personally in the bloodbath..., cared for his image. In Crimea he had contact with the West through Canadian Macdonald's CEO, G. Cohon. But, the guys remaining in Moscow laughed at Gorbachev's instructions and grabbed power. Gorbachev returned finished. CCCP fell apart and this required a new US policy.

Excessive to say, socialism did wrongs to the small nations, but of course the main acting factor was simply that in these places there appeared an opportunity for the people in power to become Heads of State. People don't miss such opportunities. And the examples were all around there, independence without a fear of invasion by Russians, full support from the West, 24/7 world press coverage, etc.

Yes, I know all of this stuff. Certainly leaders wanted their own states, but it's far more complicated than that. The concentration of wealth in the RSFSR, the use of Central Asia as a garbage dump, and many other factors led to the rise of nationalist movements from the ground up.

In my research I draw from numerous sources representing various different ethnic groups and archival materials. I've gotten pretty adept at identifying the political positions of various scholars and weighing that into my evaluations. Of course, I don't waste any time on American sources.

As for your argument on socialism, that was certainly what they promoted in their propaganda, but how can you call the Soviet Union socialist when there were special markets for the nomenklatura? it became an elite class. They posed as a socialist country and had elements of socialism, but it was a multinational empire that exploited its periphery for the benefit of the ruling class in much the same way the Russian Empire did.

[pyshnov]

dark_globe, you are saying:

As for your argument on socialism, that was certainly what they promoted in their propaganda, but how can you call the Soviet Union socialist when there were special markets for the nomenklatura? it became an elite class. They posed as a socialist country and had elements of socialism, but it was a multinational empire that exploited its periphery for the benefit of the ruling class in much the same way the Russian Empire did.

I guess that's what the reality of socialism is. If socialism is imagined as synonymous with "just society", then one is bound to see the reality of it as a perversion of the idea. But, as I see it, the idea is flawed in that it can not be implemented.

I think that you put too much emphasis on exploitation of periphery. In fact, Russia proper was the poorest part of the Soviet empire. In the same way the satellite countries, Poland etc. were allowed to enjoy more freedom and prosperity. In addition, the most feared opposition was always anything that could come from Russian nationalism. Others were allowed more freedom and the ethnic cultures were encouraged and subsidised.

The present Ukrainian position that Stalin and the regime intentionally starved Ukrainians to death seems to me totally ridiculous. Yes, people there were left to die, very likely intentionally. But, who were these people? Yes, they were Ukrainians, but was this the reason? I believe - not; they were industrious peasants who despite the raids of communists, still managed to produce, managed to hoard bread. They were refusing to go to the collective farms. These were the real reasons why the communist regime hated them, not because they were Ukrainians.

True, in the regions at the periphery there was much of the resources, but the same exploitation and iron will of the Kremlin were applied in Russia. I must say that the conditions in Russia for the minorities were better than in some Western countries. There was never such hate as sometimes is seen here.

As to the Imperial Russia, I again do not completely agree. Yes, Georgians, Chechens were subjugated, but once it was done, they enjoyed quite a good life. I do not think there was "exploitation" there more than in Russia proper. The Tzar had a Chechen regiment as His own personal Guards. Armenians had found a shelter in Russian Empire, were saved from Turkish pogroms.

I say all this not to defend the imperial idea. But, only to say that it was not the exploitation of the periphery that led to the collapse of Soviet Union. Separate countries must live separately - that is the conclusion history is teaching us.

[dark_globe]

I could quibble with you here and there, but frankly I don't think we differ too much in our points of view on this subject. I'd love to be able to sit down with you and talk about this stuff, though. That would be enjoyable.

[pyshnov]

I have no doubt I would enjoy this too. It is rarely possible to have a sincere talk on these matters.

[cgfunmathguy]

Yet, you seem to believe anything coming from Bill O'Rielly, Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity.  You seem to believe hypothetical non-realistic market forces are the solution, and that anecdotal evidence trumps scientific and statistical analysis.

Based on this and your turn to nastiness, I'm done talking to you.

Peace.

It is amazing that you can assume to whom I listen or what I watch. FYI, I only watch ESPN after 7 pm; so I don't ever watch Bill O'Reilly. I think he's out to lunch at least half the time, if not more. I teach or hold office hours in the afternoon, so I couldn't listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, even if I wanted to.

I do believe that the market does a better job than politicians and bureaucrats do.

I base my opinions on my experiences, an amazing number of which don't jive with what some scientific/statistical analysis says, and on my readings of various sources, not just those that conform to my political/ideological bent. In fact, I teach mathematics and statistics, and I know firsthand how data can be cherry-picked to prove any conclusion that a study's sponsor wants me to prove. You have to: (1) follow the money, (2) understand that statistical analyses are not always correct, and (3) be willing to listen to sources outside of your comfort zone when evaluating/reading a statistical analysis of anything.

I have not tried to be nasty, and I don't believe I have been. I can be if I try.

Here's hoping you have a good day.

[spork]

You guys need to read some Janos Kornai and Friedrich Hayek.