Re: The Devil?? What Devil??

No 33 Secretary wrote:
tussock wrote:
vince garcia wrote:
Christopher Adams wrote:
vince garcia wrote:

The problem with full bore socialized medicine, ala canada, UK,
etc., is that if it is totally free, people come to the doctor for
every sniffle, and the system gets so flooded with unnecessary
health care requests, it takes months to get anything done for those
who really need help.

Demonstrably false.

Not according to a news segment i saw on it, and not according to some
Brits I know.

<Yawn> You've perhaps heard of the weakness of anecdotal evidence?

Technically speaking, it's more than you've offered.

Of course. I wasn't seeking to offer any evidence at all, merely
indicating the presence a poor argument.

As an interesting coincidence, on a local talk show yesterday,

There's a peer reveiwed reference for you, outstanding. A thing
some guy on usenet heard on talk radio.

the subject of a new comprehensice health care system just passed by
the legislature in california was the topic. A guest on the show, a
local dr who runs a breast cancer clicnic, slammed it and socialized
medicine for nearly an hour, going into tortuous detail on why the
whole idea is bad and will actually result in substandard and reduced
health care for those who need it worse.

Going out of business due to new law, doesn't like new law: check.

(It hasn't passed yet, last I heard. It passed on house, but not the
other yet. But don't let that stop a good hysterical rant.)

Threatened with going out of business; check. Much better reason to
posture on talk radio anyway.

Now I need to point out this dr is not a hospital or insurance
representative; she's more an advocate for normal people who does most
of her surgery on a volunteer basis, and actually loses money each
year at her clinic.

"Loses money" being a another way of saying "recovers tax".

She says anyone who advocates socialized medicine for the US is an
absolute fool, and can explain why using facts, figures and personal
experience.

An argument style fit for usenet. Probably wouldn't get far in a
medical journal though, what with all the stupid people running them.

Why would a political debate belong in a medical journal? What kind of
moron would think it does?

The kind like me, duh. The efficacy of things like vaccines are quite
limited with insufficient distribution, and public vs private cost
covering will have been well studied there. Certainly "political" things
like policy on food and drug laws has been covered many times, as have
far more political things like the effect of foriegn policies and wars,
why not the delivery of and payment for other "health services"?

OK, if the journals' costs are primarily covered by private medicine
companies, they've got no incentive at all to look at articles about how
publically funded medicine might improve healthcare results.

--
tussock

Sorry. Honestly, I totally shouldn't have said that. Also, *** you.
.