Re: An error made by critics of socialized medicine

On Oct 17, 4:56 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1192653395.496342.201540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Oct 17, 3:19 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1192650949.999567.320600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 16, 4:32 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1192564753.454111.278290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 15, 5:19 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1192459176.054245.312370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 15, 9:31 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1192392911.456716.225500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 14, 11:59 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1192295377.694862.186930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I've noticed a consistent error on the part of critics of
socialized
medicine. They tend to treat the provision of health care
as
if
it
were just like a service like fast food, or selling
neckties.
It
isn't. People quite naturally want to help other people
who
are
in
pain, or are ill. There is no need for a profit motive to
provide a
good service. The profit motive actually INTERFERES WITH
GOOD
SERVICE!!! Capitalism doesn't work particularly well with
health
care.
Then explain why the most advanced medical care, most
advanced
devices,
procedures, equipment, supplies and drugs ALL originate in
America.
You're confusing research and service. I agree that
capitalism
fosters new ideas better than socialism does. But socialism
works
better for standard procedures applied in standard ways, en
masse.
Economies of scale apply, and destructive competition -- like
the
enormous medical litigation system in the United States --
ceases
to
exist.
Both sides in this debate tend to oversimplify. Socialism
works
better for most standard health care, because people are well
motivated to help others in standard ways without the profit
motive,
and are not distracted from doing so by greed.
Who says "people are well motivated to help others in standard
ways
without
the profit motive" and has some significant proof to back it up?
Nobody....
You're claiming that medical professionals would spend their
free
time
and
money to learn more to be better medical professionals for the
love
of
being
a better medical professional yet NOTHING is preventing them
from
doing
that
today - and they still don't.
You're claiming that medical professionals would spend their
free
time
and
money to learn more to be better medical professionals for the
love
of
being
a better medical professional and would TURN DOWN promotions and
raises -
yet IT NEVER HAPPENS.
Capitalism works
better for medical research, because extraordinary creativity
and
resourcefulness often require special incentives such as the
profit
motive.
Profit isn't a special incentive in Capitalism, profit is THE
incentive.
You're trying to set up a straw man that I haven't presented.
I'm
not
saying that doctors will spend all of their time trying to
perfect
their skills without a profit motive. I'm saying that standard
skills
applied for a salary and the desire to help people are all that
is
required for most medical care.
Sure, but that's gonna get you average medical care.
A salaried doctor is like the half-retarded dolt at the DMV. And
BTW
that's
one of the key elements that's wrong with every version of
socialized
medicine around. Half-interested, half-speed, waiting for 5:00pm
on
the
clock. And it spreads just like cancer through every facet of the
healthcare system from administration to janitorial staff.
There's an element to profit that you're not considering. Profit
comes
AFTER hard work. Only those people willing to perform at the
highest
levels
get the profit and only AFTER performing at those high levels. One
has
to
volunteer to do more before getting rewarded for doing more. And
nobody
is
stopping anybody from doing more.
You don't have to look far to see what happens when the reward for
doing
more is eliminated.
People cease doing more.
How about an apples-to-apples comparison? Compare UPS to the Post
Office.
And the profit motive can interfere
with this, by discouraging doctors from applying these standard
skills, when patients haven't the money to pay for them.
We don't have that problem. Hospitals pay doctors to treat the
poor.
The
rest of us pay for it.
But there probably IS less healthcare delivered to the poor simply
because
hospitals perceive limits on how much they can pass on to the rest
of
us
before we balk.
Our dispute seems to be exactly where the line should be placed
specifying when the profit motive improves performance and when it
interferes with performance. Both obviously can occur. It is,
indeed, a very interesting question.
Let me give you a very simple example:
Hemophiliacs live, on average, 20 years longer in England or Canada
than they do in the United States. All they need are blood
transfusions, a very simple procedure. But, because of the
materials
involved, and the amounts involved, it is also very expensive.
Therefore, in the United States, excuses are found not to provide
them
with their needed blood. So, they die. In England or Canada, their
obvious need takes priority, and the blood is always provided.
If that was real (and not an illustration) it would be a concern.
How many other syndromes of this type exist in the United States?
You haven't cited the first one yet...
Actually, it is real. Just not discussed a lot. British reports show
hemophiliacs in England have a life expectancy comparable to the rest
of the population. In the U.S. there are decades of difference.
Britain
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/562081
That's not a real link.
United States
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/96/2/437
"Compared with persons in other health insurance categories, those
with Medicare/Medicaid were more likely to die; this finding did not
change after adjustment for differences in the distributions of age
and other risk factors. Increased mortality among individuals with
Medicare/Medicaid coverage has been observed in the general US
population and is attributed to selection for these programs on the
basis of existing health problems or low socioeconomic status and,
once enrolled, to differences in access to medical care.21 Among
persons in our cohort who were 18 years old, 22% were either
unemployed or disabled; moreover, mortality rates were 2 and 4 times
higher, respectively, among individuals in these categories compared
with those who were employed (results not shown). The unemployed and
disabled comprised 29% of persons with Medicare/Medicaid compared with
only 4% of those with private insurance or HMO coverage. Some of this
observed effect of government insurance on mortality may have been
mediated by poverty, but no socioeconomic data were available for
study of this issue."
The mortality rates of the poor are always higher.
Which proves that a profit-based healthcare system made possible by
people
who aren't poor provides better healthcare.
Or that socialism is a better system than capitalism.

I'll try again.

The poor use socialized medicine.

The poor mortality rates are higher.

That doesn't prove that socialized medicine is bad, only that profit-based
healthcare is better IF YOU HAVE MONEY.

Socialism is better for people who have nothing because they end up with a
little something.

Capitalims is better for people who want a bit more than a little something.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think that is probably a fairly accurate assessment. Depending on
how you define "a little something", of course. If you define it as
adequate health care for most people under most circumstances to
maximize life expectancy given current medical knowledge, I would
agree with it. Bear in mind, most people in socialized health care
services in other countries -- in contrast to the United States --
express a high degree of satisfaction with the service.

Obviously, if you have unlimited resources, you can get a wider range
of services in a capitalist medical environment. I would not deny
this. There is, of course, the danger of being milked by the service
provider: given expensive treatments that you don't really need,
simply because you have the money to pay for it. A clever consumer
will be able to avoid this.

There is a factor which, I think, you may be unfamiliar with.
Government services actually are better run, in general, in other
countries than they are in the United States. People are brought up
with more of a sense of social responsibility, a sense that everyone
benefits if they help others. So, a Canadian or British doctor is
much more oriented to actually helping his patients as a matter of
personal responsibility -- as an end in itself, as a matter of pride
-- than is the case in the U.S. They don't need to profit from it.
They just want to do it. They are trained this way, from childhood.
The Government is God, and they work for the Government.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An error made by critics of socialized medicine
    ... They tend to treat the provision of health care as ... The profit motive actually INTERFERES WITH GOOD ... Medicare/Medicaid coverage has been observed in the general US ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: An error made by critics of socialized medicine
    ... >>> basis of existing health problems or low socioeconomic status and, ... >>> only 4% of those with private insurance or HMO coverage. ... > Or that socialism is a better system than capitalism. ... -- than is the case in the U.S. They don't need to profit from it. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: An error made by critics of socialized medicine
    ... They tend to treat the provision of health care as if ... Capitalism doesn't work particularly well with health ... fosters new ideas better than socialism does. ... Medicare/Medicaid coverage has been observed in the general US ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: An error made by critics of socialized medicine
    ... They tend to treat the provision of health care as if ... Capitalism doesn't work particularly well with health ... fosters new ideas better than socialism does. ... Medicare/Medicaid coverage has been observed in the general US ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: An error made by critics of socialized medicine
    ... They tend to treat the provision of health care as if ... Capitalism doesn't work particularly well with health ... fosters new ideas better than socialism does. ... Medicare/Medicaid coverage has been observed in the general US ...
    (alt.politics)
Loading