Socialized Health Care

[arrdvarkus]

America has a socialized system in place, its been there a long time, and its crap...ask anyone who has dealt with the Veterans Administration,and they will tell you. I've been dealing with them for nearly a year and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Nothing is really free and you get what you pay for.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

I'm against socialized health care for quite a few reasons.

First, government is not anywhere as efficient as the private sector.

In other words, even intelligent *conservatives* recognize the government is capable of efficiency. They just want everyone to think the opposite because it gets them more votes.

In the beginning, I'm sure you could get a lot of things done more efficiently in the public sector. Over time, however, things degrade to a much worse state of affairs. It's not about who's more efficient in the beginning, it's about who has more incentive to STAY efficient. The government has no incentive to stay efficient, mostly because(as recent trends indicate) we're most likely(in the US) going to be seeing a "Health Care Czar" who would be appointed by the president, not elected. This means they wont be beholden to the people, which means they'll be able to get away with a much worse work ethic.

The government doesn't have to be efficient and when the workers for the government realize this, they'll stop trying. It happened in the Post Office, the DMV, and most other government run institutions. Why wouldn't it happen in health care?

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Socializing medicine would, in theory, fix most of these problems right there and that's why i prefer it to what we have now.

"Theory" is the operative word.
In theory, Soviet-style Communism would lead to paradise on earth. Look how well that worked out.

In theory, American-style Democracy would lead to freedom from sea to shining sea. Look how well that worked out. At least, compared to every other system.

Let's not forget that America is a grand experiment by a bunch of eggheads who thought the theories of philosophers like John Locke and Adam Smith were right.

Could you imagine if Obama started talking about some kind of "invisible hand" as a reason for why his polices would work?

Don't worry people think the Invisible Hand is real. Which I thought had died out unfortunately some people in various American Universities believe that is quite a valid theory to this day.

 

[caz105]

It is a good idea, but in my opinion people who choose to be unhealthy (obese, smoke, drugs etc)
should pay more for health care than normal people as they are more of a drain of resources and everyone else pays for their habits.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Over time, however, things degrade to a much worse state of affairs.

Well, the SSA has been around since 1935--what kind of time span are we talking here?

I'll be quite honest when I tell you that I know next to nothing about Social Security. I know it costs a lot and is trying to work like a pyramid scheme, but I don't know much about the management or really anything else. It seems like a complete waste of government time and money to me, but I'm 24 so maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture here.

It's not about who's more efficient in the beginning, it's about who has more incentive to STAY efficient.

Does the evidence bear that out, though? Is that true of Medicaid, Medicare, SChIP, etc.? I see a lot of conflicting conclusions on that. What you say makes sense in theory, but, what about the real world?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/nyregion/18medicaid.html

That seems to bear out the idea that government isn't as efficient at working Medicaid as it probably could. Then again, that was 4 years ago. Maybe they've gotten their act together.

The government has no incentive to stay efficient, mostly because(as recent trends indicate) we're most likely(in the US) going to be seeing a "Health Care Czar" who would be appointed by the president, not elected. This means they wont be beholden to the people, which means they'll be able to get away with a much worse work ethic.

Does it? Is it going to be like the Chair of the Fed Reserve, or a cabinet-type position? If it's a cabinet-type position the person with the power to dismiss the Czar would be beholden to the people: even in the Bush administration which didn't give a shit what the people thought Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld got shown the door.

And...the Fed Reserve hasn't done such a bad job even given how independent it is. Now, the advice of Fed Reserve chairmen on issues beyond the brief, that's a different matter.

I believe that Czars are very much like cabinet positions, but I'm not 100% about that. I know that they work directly under the President and don't have to answer to Congress, only to the President. I think this is problematic, because it gives a whole lot more power to the Executive Branch, whereas the Constitution calls for checks and balances. If the Czars only have to listen to the President there will be SOME oversight, but only if it's in the news that they're doing a bad job. They only have to do enough work to make sure they're not being called nasty names by the press and that's only going to give them incentive to do a bare minimum of work, not exceptional or good work. That doesn't mean they'll do their job poorly, it just means that I don't think they'll be as effective as private citizens.

Also, I don't think the Federal Reserve is really doing its job all that well. It was created to help handle the peaks and valleys of the capitalistic system and, if the past 20 years are any indication, they're not very good at that. The tech. bubble, housing bubble, commercial real estate bubble(yet to pop). . .

The government doesn't have to be efficient and when the workers for the government realize this, they'll stop trying. It happened in the Post Office, the DMV, and most other government run institutions. Why wouldn't it happen in health care?

I think the Post Office runs pretty damn good. It costs the same to send a letter to someone living in a rural, low-traffic area as it does to send to someone living next to the post office: that's one of the ways private business undercuts the government, by *only* concerning itself with profit. The government doesn't have to answer to shareholders who are only looking for a profit: it can listen to the needs of its customers instead even when it can't turn a profit on them.

And recently in my state the DMV has markedly improved and is actually a rather painless experience, so. And I've never had an issue with my library being inefficient either.

'Eh, the Post Office/DMV just seems to be the standard "everyone knows how badly that's run" type of thing. It's more of a stereo-type than anything, but my experiences with the Post Office haven't been all that amazing. And, honestly, the only time I've been to the DMV I was one of three people there(excluding the worker), so I don't have any horror stories of that, either.

Still, the major difference between private and public is that you have a choice of if you want to do business with the private sector. If a company doesn't meet your standards of what should be done, you can simply starve them of your money and move on. With the government, they're going to get your money even if they do a bad job. Not only that, but they'll take your money at the point of a gun.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Socializing medicine would, in theory, fix most of these problems right there and that's why i prefer it to what we have now.

"Theory" is the operative word.
In theory, Soviet-style Communism would lead to paradise on earth. Look how well that worked out.

In theory, American-style Democracy would lead to freedom from sea to shining sea. Look how well that worked out. At least, compared to every other system.

Let's not forget that America is a grand experiment by a bunch of eggheads who thought the theories of philosophers like John Locke and Adam Smith were right.

Could you imagine if Obama started talking about some kind of "invisible hand" as a reason for why his polices would work?

Don't worry people think the Invisible Hand is real. Which I thought had died out unfortunately some people in various American Universities believe that is quite a valid theory to this day.

Must we devolve into name calling? This is not about "Invisible Hand"s or anything else of that nature. This is about health care.

By the way, America is a Republic, not a Democracy.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Socializing medicine would, in theory, fix most of these problems right there and that's why i prefer it to what we have now.

"Theory" is the operative word.
In theory, Soviet-style Communism would lead to paradise on earth. Look how well that worked out.

In theory, American-style Democracy would lead to freedom from sea to shining sea. Look how well that worked out. At least, compared to every other system.

Let's not forget that America is a grand experiment by a bunch of eggheads who thought the theories of philosophers like John Locke and Adam Smith were right.

Could you imagine if Obama started talking about some kind of "invisible hand" as a reason for why his polices would work?

Don't worry people think the Invisible Hand is real. Which I thought had died out unfortunately some people in various American Universities believe that is quite a valid theory to this day.

Must we devolve into name calling? This is not about "Invisible Hand"s or anything else of that nature. This is about health care.

By the way, America is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Name calling? Uh what? I never name called once in my post. You are just coming off as a ludicrous and uneducated troll at this point. Oh and this topic has quite a bit to do with the Invisible Hand since people are still citing it as a perfectly valid theory in this very thread.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Sorry Gibbs Larkin, you're wrong. I'm not entirely sure as to your sources, but the NHS still provides a decent standard of care, even compared to other EU countries.

Cheeze - Adam Smith was right. He was also an advocate of public healthcare and social security, as well as being the father of capitalism. The 'invisible hand' simply refers to the fact that the market will inavriably produce the best outcome in most situations. Smith never claimed it to be in the case of everything.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Socializing medicine would, in theory, fix most of these problems right there and that's why i prefer it to what we have now.

"Theory" is the operative word.
In theory, Soviet-style Communism would lead to paradise on earth. Look how well that worked out.

In theory, American-style Democracy would lead to freedom from sea to shining sea. Look how well that worked out. At least, compared to every other system.

Let's not forget that America is a grand experiment by a bunch of eggheads who thought the theories of philosophers like John Locke and Adam Smith were right.

Could you imagine if Obama started talking about some kind of "invisible hand" as a reason for why his polices would work?

Don't worry people think the Invisible Hand is real. Which I thought had died out unfortunately some people in various American Universities believe that is quite a valid theory to this day.

Must we devolve into name calling? This is not about "Invisible Hand"s or anything else of that nature. This is about health care.

By the way, America is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Name calling? Uh what? I never name called once in my post. Unlike you who is a ludicrious and uneducated troll at this point. Oh and this topic has quite a bit to do with the Invisible Hand since people are still citing it as a perfectly valid theory in this very thread.

Evidently I was a bit early in my asking for people to remain civil. My bad. Please, continue to throw accusations like "ludicrious and uneducated troll" so that this thread will have to be moderated.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Sorry Gibbs Larkin, you're wrong. I'm not entirely sure as to your sources, but the NHS still provides a decent standard of care, even compared to other EU countries.

Cheeze - Adam Smith was right. He was also an advocate of public healthcare and social security, as well as being the father of capitalism. The 'invisible hand' simply refers to the fact that the market will inavriably produce the best outcome in most situations. Smith never claimed it to be in the case of everything.

He was right is the key he has little that applies to today. Especially since a lot of his ideas had to do with people using fair play instead of fucking over their neighbors. Also a lot of people specifically American Capitalists believe the Invisible Hand solves everything thus they continue to favor more and more deregulation when it was the lack of regulation in the first place that got us where we are.

 

[Leviathan902]

I used to be totally pro-NHS until my wife (who is a doctor) educated me on the subject.

Now, alot of stuff about inefficiency, government bureaucracy, long wait times, system abuse, frazzled/overworked doctors/staff, higher taxes, etc.. I completely agree with. However, what swayed my opinion is the following statistical fact:

If you are a male diagnosed (early on) with prostate cancer in a country with NHS, your chances of survival hover around just over 60-70%.

If you are a male diagnosed (early on) with prostate cancer in the United States, your chances of survival hover around 91-100%

This is just an example, but it is true.

Now, considering I'm employed, I'm paying for health care either way. Either it's coming out of my paycheck and going to an insurer, or it's coming out in taxes to the government. I don't know about you, but if I'm paying for it anyway, I want that 91-100%, not the 60-70.

 

[similar.squirrel]

It's the obligation of any self-respecting government. Too bad people start to get tetchy at the first sign of increased taxation.

 

[Stevedave00]

I'm all for it.