RonPaulIsGood
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 79
Hillary lied that she does not support about socialized medicine and she lied that she would make a free market approach.
Help me understand "Socialized Medicine"
- Thread starter ChooseLiberty
- Start date
ChooseLiberty
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 2,509
There's a lot of confusion over what "free market" and "socialized" means even on this board and among the experts.
For now let's say socialized means government regulation over private property. There are various degrees.
Requiring the hospital emergency rooms to take all comers is therefore socialized since it is regulating private hospitals on how to handle their business. Since you're in the business you know that somebody ends up paying for those visits even if the e-room visitor does not - doctors and nurses don't usually work for free.
I'm not really making an argument here, I'm just posing questions that don't have easy answers to clarify how the "free market" vs. "socialized medicine" would work IRL.
A free market has the "Mary Sal Wooten" problem. And a socialized system has the problem of "free riders" that is closing emergency rooms and hospitals, but the free marketers haven't clearly explained how it would work either. See Fred Reed's article above.
Maybe the answer is there would be an outburst of charity or the hospitals would just distribute the charges over the rest of the patients like they do now. In that case, under a free market the hospitals that didn't accept "free riders" could provide a lower rate to the people that actually paid so eventually all the non-free riders would end up at the non-charity hospitals. Interesting.
For now let's say socialized means government regulation over private property. There are various degrees.
Requiring the hospital emergency rooms to take all comers is therefore socialized since it is regulating private hospitals on how to handle their business. Since you're in the business you know that somebody ends up paying for those visits even if the e-room visitor does not - doctors and nurses don't usually work for free.
I'm not really making an argument here, I'm just posing questions that don't have easy answers to clarify how the "free market" vs. "socialized medicine" would work IRL.
A free market has the "Mary Sal Wooten" problem. And a socialized system has the problem of "free riders" that is closing emergency rooms and hospitals, but the free marketers haven't clearly explained how it would work either. See Fred Reed's article above.
Maybe the answer is there would be an outburst of charity or the hospitals would just distribute the charges over the rest of the patients like they do now. In that case, under a free market the hospitals that didn't accept "free riders" could provide a lower rate to the people that actually paid so eventually all the non-free riders would end up at the non-charity hospitals. Interesting.
Last edited:
RonPaulIsGood
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 79
We don't need any regulation, intervention, and subsidies specifically on healthcare. We can just give the poor more money so they can choose to spend it on healthcare. I don't understand why is the government specifically intervent on healthcare but not just giving more money to poor people. But taxing the rich would raise sales prices. To be effective, we should only give money to the "very poor", not the middle class nor the lower class. FairTax unfortunately give money to all of the non-upper-classes. Abolishing the Fed is better.
I am guessing that Democrats don't trust commercial healthcare because the rich wants to "exploit" its power. The Democrats also think that governmental agencies, such as school, healthcare, etc. is better than the free market because they think that a unified system is "more efficient" than free markets. That is why they like big Federal gov't
I am guessing that Democrats don't trust commercial healthcare because the rich wants to "exploit" its power. The Democrats also think that governmental agencies, such as school, healthcare, etc. is better than the free market because they think that a unified system is "more efficient" than free markets. That is why they like big Federal gov't
Last edited:
ionlyknowy
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 998
I just watched Sicko by Michael Moore. They way he portrays the healthcare in Canada and France is sooo peachy. But I wonder how much in taxes these people pay?
He never mentions how much they are taxed...
There are not perfect answers to every question or problem. Healthcare might be one of those problems, there is no right answer, just an answer that is more correct.
To find a more correct answer first you must establish the goals of healthcare.
Must this healthcare provide care for all people and make it affordable?
Must this healthcare also be effective and efficient, (no waiting, high quality treatment?)
Must this healthcare also provide nice salaries for doctors?
Must this healthcare not affect or raise taxes past a certain amount?
Depending on what your stated goals are will change the "correct answer"
This is why people have trouble finding the "correct" way to address the problem (free market, socialized medicine)
Both have their advantages both have their disadvantages.
For instance, free market will not provide care for EVERY person. If you cannot pay, then you cannot get the care, period. That is how free market works. It is based on supply and demand. At least SOME people have to be priced out of the market or else no one would enter the market as a doctor. If everyone could afford a triple bypass, then I dont think you would see many people wanting to be doctors.
Socialized medicine fixes this problem theoretically. Government pays for the healthcare. Therefore, everyone gets the care for "free"
BUT
You have the problem of lack of quality of care, and potential for lines for critical procedures.
And much higher taxes to fund it...
If it is the goal of a country to have mediocre care for everyone, then socialized medicine is the way to go.
If it is the goal of a country to have top of the notch care with very few lines, but are willing to deny poor people care, then free market is the answer.
Free markets favor people that have money, pure and simple.
Which do you want to have?
He never mentions how much they are taxed...
There are not perfect answers to every question or problem. Healthcare might be one of those problems, there is no right answer, just an answer that is more correct.
To find a more correct answer first you must establish the goals of healthcare.
Must this healthcare provide care for all people and make it affordable?
Must this healthcare also be effective and efficient, (no waiting, high quality treatment?)
Must this healthcare also provide nice salaries for doctors?
Must this healthcare not affect or raise taxes past a certain amount?
Depending on what your stated goals are will change the "correct answer"
This is why people have trouble finding the "correct" way to address the problem (free market, socialized medicine)
Both have their advantages both have their disadvantages.
For instance, free market will not provide care for EVERY person. If you cannot pay, then you cannot get the care, period. That is how free market works. It is based on supply and demand. At least SOME people have to be priced out of the market or else no one would enter the market as a doctor. If everyone could afford a triple bypass, then I dont think you would see many people wanting to be doctors.
Socialized medicine fixes this problem theoretically. Government pays for the healthcare. Therefore, everyone gets the care for "free"
BUT
You have the problem of lack of quality of care, and potential for lines for critical procedures.
And much higher taxes to fund it...
If it is the goal of a country to have mediocre care for everyone, then socialized medicine is the way to go.
If it is the goal of a country to have top of the notch care with very few lines, but are willing to deny poor people care, then free market is the answer.
Free markets favor people that have money, pure and simple.
Which do you want to have?
In regards to (the "Mary Sal Wooten" issue ).
A Free Market Health Care System would mean that her medications were much less expensive.
Obviously cheap is not the same as zero cost. Since she doesn't have any money and apparently no way to earn money, she would be reliant on family, friends & other private charity. Surely there would be someone who would value her life more than the small cost of the inexpensive free-market medications.
And most importantly, they would do so voluntarily, no force required.
A Free Market Health Care System would mean that her medications were much less expensive.
Obviously cheap is not the same as zero cost. Since she doesn't have any money and apparently no way to earn money, she would be reliant on family, friends & other private charity. Surely there would be someone who would value her life more than the small cost of the inexpensive free-market medications.
And most importantly, they would do so voluntarily, no force required.
allopathy vs homeopathic medicine
Allopathy or conventional medicine took over and homeopathic medicine was run to the ground in the 30'. Rockefellars dominated the allopathic scene and eventually took over. i don't believe that allopathy is doing a good job of healing people. It focouses on disease, and supports big corporate medicine. Corporate medicine is for the money. So it's foundation was set up by a monopolists and the theory of conventional medicine is not about curing, but rather treating disease. it is very shortsighted and refuses to look at the bigger picture. i know I am speaking in general terms. but I think it is important to understand the larger picture. also the fda have been very harsh on alternative health promoters, because these companys promote natural health medicines that actuallly heal many diseases claimed by gov't to be very difficult to cure or treat. Google these terms
newstarget.com is an excellent source to healing
Allopathy or conventional medicine took over and homeopathic medicine was run to the ground in the 30'. Rockefellars dominated the allopathic scene and eventually took over. i don't believe that allopathy is doing a good job of healing people. It focouses on disease, and supports big corporate medicine. Corporate medicine is for the money. So it's foundation was set up by a monopolists and the theory of conventional medicine is not about curing, but rather treating disease. it is very shortsighted and refuses to look at the bigger picture. i know I am speaking in general terms. but I think it is important to understand the larger picture. also the fda have been very harsh on alternative health promoters, because these companys promote natural health medicines that actuallly heal many diseases claimed by gov't to be very difficult to cure or treat. Google these terms
newstarget.com is an excellent source to healing
I have a few complaints about our Canadian health care system and those do revolve around wait times (that's been improving in the last year or two) and the almost careless regard people have for it in terms of overusing the medical system. Because our system is 'free'....no charge at all whenever a person goes to a doctor or the hospital and no insurance forms to be filled out.....it's very easy to go to the doctor almost unnecessarily which increases the costs immensely.
Yes, there are many complaints from doctors about the system too because they do have a cap on their income, however, it is not a salaried system for doctors. It is fee based.
I've never known anything except universal healthcare so I come from a basis of a kind of luxury of never having had to worry about paying a hospital or doctor's bill. I have no idea what it's like for people in the U.S. to deal with insurance companies ....whether it's the paperwork or the possibility of having their coverage cut off. It would be interesting to see how a true free market model would work.
But as much as I complain about our system here, statistically we seem to do fairly well. I know we have a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. and we live longer which is, apparently, attributable to our health care system but there's no question the system needs improving. One thing I can tell you about our universal healthcare though....Canadians hold it sacrosanct and no politician ever would consider touching it unless it was to make improvements if he/she ever hoped to be elected.
From a Harvard Medical School study:
A Harvard Medical School survey has found that Canadians are healthier than Americans, have better health-care access than Americans and are generally more satisfied with their medical services than their southern neighbours.
Even though some Canadians complain about having to wait for operations, when their universal cover is compared to America's patchy services where tens of millions of people have no cover at all, America's overall medical services are seen as inferior Canada's.
Canadians, per head, spend much less than Americans do on health, and end up receiving much more and much better health care - Canadians are also enjoying far better health.
Here are some comparisons
-- 20.7% of Americans are obese
-- 15.3% of Canadians are obese
Incidence of diabetes in adults is 50% higher in America than Canada
-- 13.6% of Americans do no exercise at all
-- 6.5% of Canadians do no exercise at all
-- Even though 19% of Canadians are regular smokers compared to USA's 16.8%, the USA has double the percentage of people suffering from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).
-- 79% of Americans have a family doctor
-- 85% of Canadians have a family doctor
-- 10% of Americans say they cannot pay for needed medication
-- 5.1% of Canadians say they cannot pay for needed medication
-- 13.2% of Americans say they have unmet health needs
-- 10.7% of Canadians say they have unmet health needs
Canadians say this is due to wait times. Most of the Americans say this is due to not being able to get the care at all. The most common barrier to access in the USA is money. The most common barrier to access in Canada is the time you have to wait to get the treatment.
-- Life expectancy in Canada is three years longer than in the USA.
The USA, which was recently compared to Great Britain in a study, also came out much worse in nearly all counts. And Great Britain usually fares badly against its European Union neighbours! This report even found that the lower classes in England enjoy better levels of health and general health care than the upper-middle classes in the USA.
Another study found that among Americans who do have access to medical care, dissatisfaction levels are much higher than in other developed nations. Click here to read about it. Americans are more likely to be at the receiving end of medical errors than patients in other countries.
Per head, Americans spend twice as much as the British or Canadians do each year on health. This leads many people to two questions:
1. Why are Americans so much less healthy than people in other developed nations?
2. Why are American health care services so poor when compared to other developed nations?
The answer to those two questions most definitely is not 'lack of money'.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44315.php
Yes, there are many complaints from doctors about the system too because they do have a cap on their income, however, it is not a salaried system for doctors. It is fee based.
I've never known anything except universal healthcare so I come from a basis of a kind of luxury of never having had to worry about paying a hospital or doctor's bill. I have no idea what it's like for people in the U.S. to deal with insurance companies ....whether it's the paperwork or the possibility of having their coverage cut off. It would be interesting to see how a true free market model would work.
But as much as I complain about our system here, statistically we seem to do fairly well. I know we have a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. and we live longer which is, apparently, attributable to our health care system but there's no question the system needs improving. One thing I can tell you about our universal healthcare though....Canadians hold it sacrosanct and no politician ever would consider touching it unless it was to make improvements if he/she ever hoped to be elected.
From a Harvard Medical School study:
A Harvard Medical School survey has found that Canadians are healthier than Americans, have better health-care access than Americans and are generally more satisfied with their medical services than their southern neighbours.
Even though some Canadians complain about having to wait for operations, when their universal cover is compared to America's patchy services where tens of millions of people have no cover at all, America's overall medical services are seen as inferior Canada's.
Canadians, per head, spend much less than Americans do on health, and end up receiving much more and much better health care - Canadians are also enjoying far better health.
Here are some comparisons
-- 20.7% of Americans are obese
-- 15.3% of Canadians are obese
Incidence of diabetes in adults is 50% higher in America than Canada
-- 13.6% of Americans do no exercise at all
-- 6.5% of Canadians do no exercise at all
-- Even though 19% of Canadians are regular smokers compared to USA's 16.8%, the USA has double the percentage of people suffering from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).
-- 79% of Americans have a family doctor
-- 85% of Canadians have a family doctor
-- 10% of Americans say they cannot pay for needed medication
-- 5.1% of Canadians say they cannot pay for needed medication
-- 13.2% of Americans say they have unmet health needs
-- 10.7% of Canadians say they have unmet health needs
Canadians say this is due to wait times. Most of the Americans say this is due to not being able to get the care at all. The most common barrier to access in the USA is money. The most common barrier to access in Canada is the time you have to wait to get the treatment.
-- Life expectancy in Canada is three years longer than in the USA.
The USA, which was recently compared to Great Britain in a study, also came out much worse in nearly all counts. And Great Britain usually fares badly against its European Union neighbours! This report even found that the lower classes in England enjoy better levels of health and general health care than the upper-middle classes in the USA.
Another study found that among Americans who do have access to medical care, dissatisfaction levels are much higher than in other developed nations. Click here to read about it. Americans are more likely to be at the receiving end of medical errors than patients in other countries.
Per head, Americans spend twice as much as the British or Canadians do each year on health. This leads many people to two questions:
1. Why are Americans so much less healthy than people in other developed nations?
2. Why are American health care services so poor when compared to other developed nations?
The answer to those two questions most definitely is not 'lack of money'.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44315.php
Warrior_of_Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 8,454
K socialized medicine is like this.
- End of World War II -
America: Damn commies and their socialism
- Cold War-
America: We must stop the commies from having people be given an equal amount of everything!
Soviet Union: We must stop the capitalists from oiling their wheels with the blood of the workers!
- 2008 Elections -
Democrats: Maybe commie medicine isn't such a bad idea.
DEMOCRATS = COMMIES!
BirdsAreWild
Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Messages
- 178
I can not believe that someone who posts about the Canadian healthcare system would use a study done by another country. If the Canadian Healthcare system is so good then why do they have wait times of over 70 days for cardiac surgery. Do you have any idea how many people die during that period of time or are you just concerned with the reulsts of the people who lived long enough to have surgery?
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index_e.html
See how wait times can affect a persons health here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U
Canada ranks 23 out of 30 in consumer satisfaction with health care:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080121/health_care_080121/20080121?hub=Canada
I could go on and on but don't really see the point. Government is not good at managing money or healthcare. When you want to go to the doctor do you ask your car mechanic what is wrong with you????? What makes anyone think that politicans are qualified to make healthcare decisions???
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index_e.html
See how wait times can affect a persons health here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U
Canada ranks 23 out of 30 in consumer satisfaction with health care:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080121/health_care_080121/20080121?hub=Canada
I could go on and on but don't really see the point. Government is not good at managing money or healthcare. When you want to go to the doctor do you ask your car mechanic what is wrong with you????? What makes anyone think that politicans are qualified to make healthcare decisions???
Similar threads
