• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Socialised Healthcare

Wildy

Adelaidean
Wildy
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
11,962
Location
Australia
This is more of a social issue then a political one but if it turns more political please don't hesitate to move it to politics.

I have noticed a strange trend from certain USAians here and on other boards. They have a strange aversion to any real Government influence in the health of it's citizens.

Now I say strange because here in Australia there is something of a socialised health system here and I see no reason why the government should help keep their citizens healthy.

For some reason these people I have mentioned in passing seem to disagree with that. Why is that?

What is the benefit of a system that does not have as much government involvement as Medicare here or the NHS in the UK?

And how does such a system benefit the society as a whole?
 
Wildy said:
Now I say strange because here in Australia there is something of a socialised health system here and I see no reason why the government should help keep their citizens healthy.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, is that what you meant to say?
 
Wildy missed out the "not", but otherwise I agree. A one percent levy on most people's income (I think, please correct if not quite right) funds our public health system. This is only a basic coverage and something like 40% (like me) are members of private health funds which provide access to your choice of doctor, private rooms, orthodontic treatment etc. This costs me $AU200 per month for the family.

So although we have a "sort of" socialised health system, it is a pretty good safety net.
 
I don't know if it is a particularly American thing, or if other countries have this problem as well... but Americans have this underlying resistance to the idea of other people benefitting more than they do, to the point that they will act against their own best interests. I've seen it my whole life. You tell someone that they can have more, and/or contribute less, and they are all for it. If you also tell them that someone else will get even more than them, and/or be required to contribute less, they will reject the idea even though it hurts them as well.

Plus, here in America the media has so completely poisoned the well, that many people reject anything that is labeled "socialized", no matter how much it would potentially benefit them and the country as a whole.
 
JoeEllison said:
I don't know if it is a particularly American thing, or if other countries have this problem as well... but Americans have this underlying resistance to the idea of other people benefitting more than they do, to the point that they will act against their own best interests. I've seen it my whole life. You tell someone that they can have more, and/or contribute less, and they are all for it. If you also tell them that someone else will get even more than them, and/or be required to contribute less, they will reject the idea even though it hurts them as well.

Plus, here in America the media has so completely poisoned the well, that many people reject anything that is labeled "socialized", no matter how much it would potentially benefit them and the country as a whole.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. In Australia we never use the word "socialised" (with due respect to wildy) but public health, public housing, public welfare etc are well accepted facets of our society. I'm not making a judgement about the US here, but even though we are both "commonwealths" there seems to be a greater sense of the common good here. I am happy to be contradicted here.
 
lionking said:
Excellent point. In Australia we never use the word "socialised" (with due respect to wildy) but public health, public housing, public welfare etc are well accepted facets of our society. I'm not making a judgement about the US here, but even though we are both "commonwealths" there seems to be a greater sense of the common good here. I am happy to be contradicted here.
Click to expand...
We've got an independent streak here, which has been corrupted and perverted into a "screw you, I've got mine" mentality... even among people who really don't have anything.
 
lionking said:
Excellent point. In Australia we never use the word "socialised" (with due respect to wildy) but public health, public housing, public welfare etc are well accepted facets of our society.
Click to expand...

Religion is also a well-accepted facet of society. So is alternative medicine.

Doesn't mean they aren't actually more like parasitic memes, though, does it? Things that survive because they "seem right" in the mental model of reality people have, but are actually detrimental, just not so detrimental as to evolve out of existence.

If "removing the profit motive" slows the development of medical technology (and yes, government money is just a fraction of private industry, and wouldn't you want both?) then the net effect is more misery and death vs. what would have been, as the cumulative effect of lagging tech builds up, year after year, decade after decade.

Consider: If socialized medicine slows technological development by only 10%, then, if this had been done in 1900, we'd only have about year 1997 tech instead of 2008 tech. What does that add up to in quality and length of life?

What about a 30% slowdown? Anyone think they're getting such a deal in 2008 getting "free" 1978 level medical care?


So, to sum up:

1. Large numbers, or even the vast majority, can believe a thing, without it being an actual benefit.

2. Small slowdowns add up, cumulatively, to be massively murderous de facto, on a scale Hitler and Stalin never dreamed. This is not hyperbole, is my point. Tens to hundreds of millions of needless deaths, to say nothing of poorer quality of life due to non-existent treatment.


But it won't slow down the tech? Sorry, hundreds of "economic experiments" last century demonstrate otherwise.

Massively pleased and content with your system? I'm glad for you.
 
I suppose a corollary would be that, had Canada, Australia, Western Europe, and other advanced societies not been engaged in socialized medicine "to remove the evil profit motive" (and other business-hampering endeavors), our global medical tech would be even higher than it is today. And hence, we're living in a sub-optimal world already.

I wonder how many people today are dying who would not, in such a world? We'll never know, barring a set of massive "ancestor simulations", but, by that point, it will be a moot question.
 
Where does the idea that single-payer or public systems lead to a loss of innovation come from?

Linda
 
fls said:
Where does the idea that single-payer or public systems lead to a loss of innovation come from?

Linda
Click to expand...

Reduction of profits is well-established to do this. Government can make up some of the difference, e.g. military or space, but in those cases there's not much direct "profit" to be made, so the government pours cash into it to force development. Such is not the case for medicine. It probably exceeds everything except food itself in driving its own innovation, by profit motive, precisely because everyone wants it so badly, and will pay for it.

I also find it cynical that I've seen some touters of socialist medicine suggesting that "relying on fame of developing a cure" is sufficient motive to keep things moving.
 
fls said:
Where does the idea that single-payer or public systems lead to a loss of innovation come from?

Linda
Click to expand...

Yeah, who exactly is spreading that particular lie? Could it be... Satan? :D
 
Beerina said:
Reduction of profits is well-established to do this. Government can make up some of the difference, e.g. military or space, but in those cases there's not much direct "profit" to be made, so the government pours cash into it to force development. Such is not the case for medicine. It probably exceeds everything except food itself in driving its own innovation, by profit motive, precisely because everyone wants it so badly, and will pay for it.

I also find it cynical that I've seen some touters of socialist medicine suggesting that "relying on fame of developing a cure" is sufficient motive to keep things moving.
Click to expand...

Nope, your "explanation" makes absolutely zero sense. There's nothing in these programs that will affect profits in the medical field to any significant degree.
 
There are costs and trade-offs that would have to be made in order to switch to a fully socialized system.

Most notably, socialized systems lead to rationing of healthcare -- usually by causing delays in obtaining treatment. I have not looked recently, but in the early- to mid-nineties there were wait times in Canada and the UK of up to 9 months for procedures such as a knee replacement that would be scheduled within days or weeks in the US. Likewise, any moderately sized city in the US had more MRI machines that *all* of Canada. The downside for the US is overtreatment and overuse of some expensive technologies like the MRI, but the trade-off for Canadians at the time was that it was far more difficult to get a timely MRI when it was desired. It isn't a coincidence that the doctors in the North and northern Mid-West were treating a ton of Canadians -- having the US next door acted as a safety valve and allowed a fair number of people receive treatment faster by corrsing the border.

Likewise, a recent study on transplant operations have shown that the US system, contrary to what many assumed, has a higher percentage of people on the waiting list receive livers (for example) *and* that they have a better chance of survival past two years afterwards.

Similarly, the numbers (at least in the nineties) showed that the majority of new treatments, new technologies, and new drugs were coming from the US. Socialized systems get those new medicines -- developed in the US -- to their citizens cheaper by mandating a lower price, but it is questionable whether all of those same medicines would have ever been developed at all if the US had adopted a socialized system.

Socialized systems do some things better than the US system: most notably, from my perspective, preventive care. It is certainly far from irrational to argue that a socialized system or one with a heavier emphasis on it might be better.

At the same time, I would appreciate it if everyone championing socialized medicine would acknowledge that there are some disadvantages to it, as well. You can well argue that the trade-offs are well worth it, but I am kind of tired of seeing everyone dismiss the American system as if the superiority of the alternative has been established as so clearly that only the stupid, evil, and/or deluded could have questions about it.
 
Beerina said:
Reduction of profits is well-established to do this.
Click to expand...

In the field of medical research? Are you thinking solely of technologic innovation?

Government can make up some of the difference, e.g. military or space, but in those cases there's not much direct "profit" to be made, so the government pours cash into it to force development. Such is not the case for medicine. It probably exceeds everything except food itself in driving its own innovation, by profit motive, precisely because everyone wants it so badly, and will pay for it.

I also find it cynical that I've seen some touters of socialist medicine suggesting that "relying on fame of developing a cure" is sufficient motive to keep things moving.
Click to expand...

Then how come innovation in drug development is more likely to come from publicly supported research in the US?

Linda
 
Wildy said:
I have noticed a strange trend from certain USAians here and on other boards. They have a strange aversion to any real Government influence in the health of it's citizens.
Click to expand...

In the state where I live, the state-provided health care to those who cannot provide for themselves has become a trememdous drain on the taxpayers. Advocates, with the help of the courts, have successfully pushed the limits of what is available to the point where their coverage is more extensive than many who are paying for their own. This seems to be a trend in the U.S. as a whole.

I have always thought that a realistic public health care system would be a good way to go, but the benefits provided have to be those of basic care. No society can afford to provide unlimited health-care to the entire population.
 
Likewise, a recent study on transplant operations have shown that the US system, contrary to what many assumed, has a higher percentage of people on the waiting list receive livers (for example) *and* that they have a better chance of survival past two years afterwards.
Click to expand...

I can't tell which study you are talking about. Can you provide a reference?

Similarly, the numbers (at least in the nineties) showed that the majority of new treatments, new technologies, and new drugs were coming from the US.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a reference for this claim?

Linda
 
Last edited:
Wildy said:
This is more of a social issue then a political one but if it turns more political please don't hesitate to move it to politics.

I have noticed a strange trend from certain USAians here and on other boards. They have a strange aversion to any real Government influence in the health of it's citizens.

Now I say strange because here in Australia there is something of a socialised health system here and I see no reason why the government should help keep their citizens healthy.

For some reason these people I have mentioned in passing seem to disagree with that. Why is that?

What is the benefit of a system that does not have as much government involvement as Medicare here or the NHS in the UK?

And how does such a system benefit the society as a whole?
Click to expand...

Because you see it as an issue between more health care and less health care, viewed that way, of course anyone would choose to have more health care. We see it as an issue between health care decisions being made by government or by individuals, and viewed that way, most people would prefer to make their own health choices.
 
CaptainManacles said:
Because you see it as an issue between more health care and less health care, viewed that way, of course anyone would choose to have more health care. We see it as an issue between health care decisions being made by government or by individuals, and viewed that way, most people would prefer to make their own health choices.
Click to expand...

I saw that sentiment repeated quite often when I first came to the US from Canada - often from doctors familiar only with the US system. I couldn't figure out what they were talking about and eventually realized that they had some sort of misperception about what a single-payer system involves. What I found particularly interesting, was that I experienced far more interference in health care decisions in the US than I ever did in Canada. Apparently interference from some nameless/faceless bureaucrat a thousand miles away is acceptable if the motive is to make a profit on your back?

Linda
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom