Socialized Medicine viewed from the bottom

[TomD]

Below from "Fred on Everything"



Fred on Everything
August 8, 2007
<!-- InstanceEndEditable --><!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="ColumnSubTitle" --> <!-- InstanceEndEditable --> <!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="ColumnDate" --> <!-- InstanceEndEditable --><!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="ColumnText" --> In thinking about socialized medicine, a couple of points merit thought:
First, the people who are most against it least need it. Usually they are columnists of the political right and the people who read them. Columnists without exception are of intelligence above the average, as are almost all of their readers. With few if any exceptions, they are well educated. Consequently they tend to be prosperous, savvy, and very likely to have good insurance.
They also have little or, more likely, no real contact with anyone who might need socialized medicine. For example in Washington, which I know well, the klaxons of left and right berate each other from the cocktail parties of Georgetown and Cap Hill, eat in posh restaurants, and vacation in the Greek Isles. They do not know the people of the truck stops and gas stations.
Second, opponents of socialized medicine seem to think that such a system would be subject to exploitation by grifters and scam artists. They are right. Note that the grifters would not be people receiving care, but Republican doctors who would pad their bills and otherwise skim off unwatched cream. We are all against corruption until it is our turn at the trough. Note also that a woman with a broken leg does not pretend to have two broken legs so as to get an extra cast.
It seems to me that the underlying question is not that of socialized medicine but rather: What is our attitude as a nation toward people who are not very smart? Who furthermore are culturally impoverished? Who are among the substantial fraction of Americans who can barely read?
They exist in large numbers. Half the white population have IQs below 100. The proportion among various non-white groups is much higher. Throw in legal aliens with fourth-grade educations and little command of English, and people in small towns where the idea of going to college is only slightly stranger than that of going to Mars.
Few of them are welfare cheats. Usually they have worked hard all their lives. Often they vote Republican. They are just…”stupid” is unkind but perhaps best conveys their condition, though some of the apparent stupidity is in fact ignorance. They can’t balance a checkbook, must less understand rollovers on a 401(k). They don’t understand what 18% interest on a credit card means, and can’t read, much less understand, a contract. (“The party of the first part, hereinafter….”) They aren’t smart enough to be entrepreneurs. Very likely, they have never read a book in their lives.
Try to imagine never having read a book. You can’t do it.
Word-crafters of my acquaintance rail against Hillary for supporting socialized medicine. They seem to think that the beneficiaries of the program would be people like themselves, only shiftless. “I studied and worked my way up and made something of myself, and I take care of myself. Why don’t these lazy bastards to the same?” Easy. Because these of my friends have IQs averaging in excess of 140, while the lazy bastards (who in fact are neither) check in at maybe 90.
I often hear it said that people should be able to invest as they think best the payments they make into Social Security. Of course what is really going on is an attempt by stock funds to get their hands on lots of other people’s money. Still, the argument is made that freedom and free enterprise demand that government not take, etc. “It’s our money. Let us invest it.” This ignores the fact that over half the population is absolutely, irremediably, hermetically incapable of investing intelligently.
Now, what do we do with people who have obeyed all the fabled American rules, who have worked, perhaps at pathetic wages and no benefits, and never cheated, and been honest citizens, and then the bottling plant went to China and they’re old and have nothing? What?
We could be good social Darwinists and let them rot. They are not cutting edge people, not Verilog mechanics or optical engineers or hedge-fund managers. Who needs them? All right. If this is your position, say so. Look me in the eye and say, “Screw’em. I don’t care what happens to them and I’m not going to spend a red cent on them.” Say this, and I will understand you.
An obstacle to thought here is that the people in the editorial suites and cocktail parties are twiddlers of abstractions. Waving a shrimp speared on a toothpick, holding a glass of vintage Sobriquet, they speak of second-order supply side multiplier effects of marginal increases in labor costs and what Burke and Adam Smith said. You’ve seen their websites: “Rothman on Kleinfelter.” “Kleinfelter on Fergweiler.” “Fergweiler on Theftwunkel.” Intellectual sparring is their world.
It’s different to Mary Sal Wooten in a decaying trailer somewhere on 301 South, with her retinas peeling like wallpaper from diabetic retinopathy, ankles swollen and darkening toward gangrene, and the hospital won’t take her because it isn’t an emergency and she can’t afford her medicine. Really, truly no-shit can’t afford it.
What do we do with people like her? People who just flat can’t handle the complexity of today’s world? It seems to me that anyone who wants to think about socialized medicine has to answer that question before starting.
When I was a kid in King George Country, Virginia, the answer commonly was the federal government. Dahlgren Naval Proving Grounds was there. It hired a lot of the local country kids, rednecks as we now say, as gate guards, truck drivers, maintenance workers, and so on. These jobs legitimately needed doing, and those hired did them well. The jobs carried benefits and pensions. But the private sector won’t if it can avoid it.
What other solutions are available? Many say, “It’s a job for private charity.” This is another way of saying, “Screw’em, I ain’t paying a cent.” Yet others say cut taxes and the resulting economic boom will lift all boats. This is another way of saying, “Screw’em, I ain’t paying a cent.”
But let’s at least have the dignity to say what we mean. The truth is that large numbers of people cannot take care of themselves beyond showing up at work every day and spinning lug nuts on the assembly line. They aren’t going to invest wisely from youth because they aren’t smart enough. Employers aren’t going to provide retirements unless forced to. Hospitals won’t take them if they can avoid it. Do we say, “Screw’em, let’em croak”? Apparently. Then let’s say so plainly.

[madfranks]

I hate that whole "you're too stupid to take care of yourself, so you need me to do it for you" mindset that seems to be typical of big government liberals. For the love of God man, the majority of Americans can understand basic elements of life, how about stop taxing them to sickness in the first place so you don't have to come and "save" them?

[jerry]

I hate that whole "you're too stupid to take care of yourself, so you need me to do it for you" mindset that seems to be typical of big government liberals. For the love of God man, the majority of Americans can understand basic elements of life, how about stop taxing them to sickness in the first place so you don't have to come and "save" them?

Part of the Division of Labor that ALL civilizations are based upon.

[des00s]

I hate that whole "you're too stupid to take care of yourself, so you need me to do it for you" mindset that seems to be typical of big government liberals. For the love of God man, the majority of Americans can understand basic elements of life, how about stop taxing them to sickness in the first place so you don't have to come and "save" them?

Exactly! Socialism is evil, therefore all socialist programs are evil.

[RaccoonRiverRadical]

... the majority of Americans can understand basic elements of life, how about stop taxing them to sickness in the first place so you don't have to come and "save" them?


Poor people do not pay an awful lot in taxes. Fred's point that a certain percentage of the population is in fact too stupid to understand the system well enough to manage for themselves is valid.

[RaccoonRiverRadical]

One thing is certain, we cannot afford War All The Time and socialized medicine.

[TET]

Which would me that Anti-socialism is good.

Key problem...Pointing a gun at someone and demanding they love you or another...Is not Socialism...

Those that advocate non socialized medicine are generally rich...Once money becomes important...Survival of the strongest/fittest...becomes survival of the richest...

In Canada socialized medicine started from the ground up to the politicians...

At first the Doctors didn't like it...Until they started recieving cash for their services instead of chickens and canned goods.

Problem in the USA...politicians are attempting to impose it during a time when doctors are enjoying massive profits...

Until the doctors in the USA are basically starving because no one can afford to support their lifestyles...They are not going to be interested in a socialized system...Since they certainly would be taking a pay cut.

There has to be a need for such a system...and currently there is no need...It's why the USA does not have a socialized system...

[californiajeff]

Exactly! Socialism is evil, therefore all socialist programs are evil.

Socialism is not evil!

So are you saying the Police department, Fire department, Public School system, Military, Library system, which are all socialist systems by the way, are evil too?

I believe in the concept Leave No Man Behind. The rich will always be able to afford healthcare. What about our working class people who can't afford a $100,000 hospital bill? Remember, all of us are getting older and will need healthcare someday.

[RaccoonRiverRadical]

[quote]Until the doctors in the USA are basically starving because no one can afford to support their lifestyles...They are not going to be interested in a socialized system...Since they certainly would be taking a pay cut.

There has to be a need for such a system...and currently there is no need...It's why the USA does not have a socialized system...

As Fred said, the people who need it are the stupid people, not the doctors.
What we need are somewhat better charity hospitals and clinics.

[Big_Rob]

That whole article was IMHO nothing more than a bash piece that reeks of leftist elitism.

[demosfen]

So are you saying the Police department, Fire department, Public School system, Military, Library system, which are all socialist systems by the way, are evil too?


They are destructive for the economy. Free market is the only way to go. Socialism destroys people's motivation to work and well-being

[learn2swim]

Who's Really 'Sicko'
In Canada, dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week. Humans can wait two to three years.
TORONTO--"I haven't seen 'Sicko,' " says Avril Allen about the new Michael Moore documentary, which advocates socialized medicine for the United States. The film, which has been widely viewed on the Internet, and which will officially open in the U.S. and Canada on Friday, has been getting rave reviews. But Ms. Allen, a lawyer, has no plans to watch it. She's just too busy preparing to file suit against Ontario's provincial government about its health-care system next month.

Her client, Lindsay McCreith, would have had to wait for four months just to get an MRI, and then months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. Instead, frustrated and ill, the retired auto-body shop owner traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., for a lifesaving surgery. Now he's suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous.

Ms. Allen figures the lawsuit has a fighting chance: In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "access to wait lists is not access to health care," striking down key Quebec laws that prohibited private medicine and private health insurance.

In the U.S., 83 House Democrats voted for a bill in 1993 calling for single-payer health care. That idea collapsed with HillaryCare and since then has existed on the fringes of the debate--winning praise from academics and pressure groups, but remaining largely out of the political discussion. Mr. Moore's documentary intends to change that, exposing millions to his argument that American health care is sick and socialized medicine is the cure.

It's not simply that Mr. Moore is wrong. His grand tour of public health care systems misses the big story: While he prescribes socialism, market-oriented reforms are percolating in cities from Stockholm to Saskatoon.

Mr. Moore goes to London, Ontario, where he notes that not a single patient has waited in the hospital emergency room more than 45 minutes. "It's a fabulous system," a woman explains. In Britain, he tours a hospital where patients marvel at their free care. A patient's husband explains: "It's not America." Humorously, Mr. Moore finds a cashier dispensing money to patients (for transportation). In France, a doctor explains the success of the health-care system with the old Marxist axiom: "You pay according to your means, and you receive according to your needs."

It's compelling material--I know because, born and raised in Canada, I used to believe in government-run health care. Then I was mugged by reality.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider, for instance, Mr. Moore's claim that ERs don't overcrowd in Canada. A Canadian government study recently found that only about half of patients are treated in a timely manner, as defined by local medical and hospital associations. "The research merely confirms anecdotal reports of interminable waits," reported a national newspaper. While people in rural areas seem to fare better, Toronto patients receive care in four hours on average; one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.

This problem hit close to home last year: A relative, living in Winnipeg, nearly died of a strangulated bowel while lying on a stretcher for five hours, writhing in pain. To get the needed ultrasound, he was sent by ambulance to another hospital.

In Britain, the Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients wait more than a year for surgery. Around the time Mr. Moore was putting the finishing touches on his documentary, a hospital in Sutton Coldfield announced its new money-saving linen policy: Housekeeping will no longer change the bed sheets between patients, just turn them over. France's system failed so spectacularly in the summer heat of 2003 that 13,000 people died, largely of dehydration. Hospitals stopped answering the phones and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.

With such problems, it's not surprising that people are looking for alternatives. Private clinics--some operating in a "gray zone" of the law--are now opening in Canada at a rate of about one per week.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian doctors, once quiet on the issue of private health care, elected Brian Day as president of their national association. Dr. Day is a leading critic of Canadian medicare; he opened a private surgery hospital and then challenged the government to shut it down. "This is a country," Dr. Day said by way of explanation, "in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."

Market reforms are catching on in Britain, too. For six decades, its socialist Labour Party scoffed at the very idea of private medicine, dismissing it as "Americanization." Today Labour favors privatization, promising to triple the number of private-sector surgical procedures provided within two years. The Labour government aspires to give patients a choice of four providers for surgeries, at least one of them private, and recently considered the contracting out of some primary-care services--perhaps even to American companies.

Other European countries follow this same path. In Sweden, after the latest privatizations, the government will contract out some 80% of Stockholm's primary care and 40% of total health services, including Stockholm's largest hospital. Beginning before the election of the new conservative chancellor, Germany enhanced insurance competition and turned state enterprises over to the private sector (including the majority of public hospitals). Even in Slovakia, a former Marxist country, privatizations are actively debated.

Under the weight of demographic shifts and strained by the limits of command-and-control economics, government-run health systems have turned out to be less than utopian. The stories are the same: dirty hospitals, poor standards and difficulty accessing modern drugs and tests.

Admittedly, the recent market reforms are gradual and controversial. But facts are facts, the reforms are real, and they represent a major trend in health care. What does Mr. Moore's documentary say about that? Nothing.

Dr. Gratzer, a practicing physician licensed in Canada and the U.S. and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is the author of "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care" (Encounter, 2006).
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/

[TomD]

It's a damned tough question. I posted the article because I think it does a good job of presenting one side of the equation. The other side of the equation is, as has been pointed out, socialized medicine (or socialized anything for that matter) ultimately brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

Either answer, socialized or current system, is unacceptable. What is truly needed are some market reforms in the US. Medical care is insanely expensive but nobody cares because the cost is hidden. The insured think they get their care for free.

I'd say that fixing medical in the US will require breaking the hold of the AMA, various Governments and the insurance companies. That is the troika that is behind the astronomical costs of medical.

[DrillAndFill]

So are you saying the Police department, Fire department, Public School system, Military, Library system, which are all socialist systems by the way, are evil too?

I believe in the concept Leave No Man Behind. The rich will always be able to afford healthcare. What about our working class people who can't afford a $100,000 hospital bill? Remember, all of us are getting older and will need healthcare someday.
No: risk and infrastructure should not be shared.

If you need to drive somewhere, build your own road. Save up your money to buy your own fire engine, and hire some guys to maintain it and be on call to protect your home. Want protection from crime? Wave a gun around all day, and keep everyone you don't trust at least 75 yards away. If someone commits a crime against you, it's your fault -- shoot the bastard.

I get so sick of people whining about not having health insurance. Shared risk against low-probability events benefits no one, which is why our founding fathers rejected insurance and collective assumption of risk in all its forms, especially John Hancock. Every American should save up $750,000 against the possibility of a chronic illness. It's a simple solution.

Same goes for the military. You worried about the Chinese? Then buy a Glock or park a fighter jet in your driveway, next to your fire engine. Oh, and build your own runway! Don't you dare tax me to pay for part of the runway on some faggot excuse that it's cheaper for everyone to pool resources. Chicom pinko garbage, is what that is.

Every time I think of the military, it sickens me to think that I'm forced to pay taxes just to protect against invasion, when I could do it better myself with a .40 S&W and an attitude.

[des00s]

Socialism is not evil!

So are you saying the Police department, Fire department, Public School system, Military, Library system, which are all socialist systems by the way, are evil too?

I believe in the concept Leave No Man Behind. The rich will always be able to afford healthcare. What about our working class people who can't afford a $100,000 hospital bill? Remember, all of us are getting older and will need healthcare someday.

The government's most important and sole duty is to protect individual rights and nothing more. Police are provided to protect these rights. Obviously without some government interference there would be anarchy. Our children have a right to an education. We have a right to have our land and borders protected from invasion by a military. We have a right to live free of pollution from nearby factories. We do not have natural rights to healthcare or retirement. We must provide these to ourselves.

You can choose to use the money from your paycheck to provide yourself with healthcare or you can choose to have the government take the money out of your paycheck and provide you with healthcare. The same goes for social security. Ultimately you will have to pay for the same services. Universal healthcare is not a free lunch. Without socialist programs like Medicare or HMO's, healthcare would be cheaper under a free system, which we don't have. That is what no one understands. Privatizing an industry always lowers costs and increases productivity.

Certainly a completely socialized system would be better than what we have now. But that does not make it less evil.

It will be interesting to see how these universal healthcare systems fare once we enter a global implosion of our current monetary system.

[TomD]

No: risk and infrastructure should not be shared.

If you need to drive somewhere, build your own road. Save up your money to buy your own fire engine, and hire some guys to maintain it and be on call to protect your home. Want protection from crime? Wave a gun around all day, and keep everyone you don't trust at least 75 yards away. If someone commits a crime against you, it's your fault -- shoot the bastard.

I get so sick of people whining about not having health insurance. Shared risk against low-probability events benefits no one, which is why our founding fathers rejected insurance and collective assumption of risk in all its forms, especially John Hancock. Every American should save up $750,000 against the possibility of a chronic illness. It's a simple solution.

Same goes for the military. You worried about the Chinese? Then buy a Glock or park a fighter jet in your driveway, next to your fire engine. Oh, and build your own runway! Don't you dare tax me to pay for part of the runway on some faggot excuse that it's cheaper for everyone to pool resources. Chicom pinko garbage, is what that is.

Every time I think of the military, it sickens me to think that I'm forced to pay taxes just to protect against invasion, when I could do it better myself with a .40 S&W and an attitude.

Just what would you call that tirade, illustrating absurdity by the use of absurdity? Whatever.

Congratulations, I think that one of the best posts that I've read in a long time.

[DrillAndFill]

Just what would you call that tirade, illustrating absurdity by the use of absurdity? Whatever.

Congratulations, I think that one of the best posts that I've read in a long time.
Thanks.

I'm venting as a delaying tactic while I figure out what I think about this issue. At some point I'll have to stop mocking overly-simplistic solutions to this mess and present my own overly-simplistic solution.

Safer at this point to just be absurd, I guess. I have no idea how to solve this.

[Antonio]

Very few things please me more than a Randian conservative with a rare cancer that requires a few 100k to cure and an anti-gun liberal raped and butchered by an HIV+ beast armed with a steak knife.

[RealJack]

Thanks.

I'm venting as a delaying tactic while I figure out what I think about this issue. At some point I'll have to stop mocking overly-simplistic solutions to this mess and present my own overly-simplistic solution.

Safer at this point to just be absurd, I guess. I have no idea how to solve this.

:D:D:D Man, you made me laugh without the use of expensive drugs. That right there saved me a cool $20. Twenty's enough for the local massage parlor if I don't ask for a happy ending.

See, you're solving people's problems just by writing absurd statements.

I'm trying to figure out what I think about this issue as well.

I'm not sure what scares me more. Not having health care, or actually HAVING healthcare. :D

[Baphomet Jones]

Safer at this point to just be absurd, I guess. I have no idea how to solve this.

Kill everyone with over 1 million dollars. Problem solved!

"Free market" collusion only gets easier when we remove restrictions on business. More money, more power, more control. Sure doesn't sound "free" to me! Or is greed somehow a byproduct of government intervention in business? :rolleyes_m: And I'm still waitin on an answer for "who owns the earth and it's resources" :bear_w00t:

Socialism is inevitable. We started socialist, we'll finish socialist. To what degree it becomes corrupted is up to you. I wouldn't mind sharing, I don't own any more of this place than anyone else, I just want my piece of it to live on. What I want in life is more than reasonable. With the free market, people tend to develop this condition where with each passing day, they become more and more parasitic. Less work, more profit! And with that extra money to throw around, you can buy a lot of politicians. Hell, buy a yacht for each of 'em and buy a dozen for yourself. Not to mention with all of your wealth, you can ensure that no one else can ever reach your level. One big upright pyramid of "freedom" :)

[TomD]

I think that my question can be distilled to this one quotation from the article. My default position is not socialism, usually the opposite, but the ultimate answer must incorporate the solution for this question. What indeed.

Now, what do we do with people who have obeyed all the fabled American rules, who have worked, perhaps at pathetic wages and no benefits, and never cheated, and been honest citizens, and then the bottling plant went to China and they’re old and have nothing? What?

[RealJack]

I think that my question can be distilled to this one quotation from the article. My default position is not socialism, usually the opposite, but the ultimate answer must incorporate the solution for this question.

Now, what do we do with people who have obeyed all the fabled American rules, who have worked, perhaps at pathetic wages and no benefits, and never cheated, and been honest citizens, and then the bottling plant went to China and they’re old and have nothing? What?An easy answer would be for Pharma to come up with a pill that permanently removes conscience.

Although, living in a perpetual war culture pretty much accomplishes the same thing.

[GoldWampum]

It has nothing to do with conscience. It has to do with accepting the laws of nature.

Freedom... Liberty, follows nature. The genetically strong (both physically and intellectually) survive. The weak and diseased perish.

Socialism, on the other hand, breeds inter-dependence and allows over-population of a generally weakened species. In the end the tinkering fails and there is a massive and horrific de-population anyway.

Shoot the messenger if you like, but the species cannot defeat the laws of nature. Some of you would like to force me to try, against my will and against nature. I didn't make it that way, nature did.

[demosfen]

Very few things please me more than a Randian conservative with a rare cancer that requires a few 100k to cure
Cancer doesn't require 100k+ to cure, it's in 3 or 4 digits, sometimes low 5 digits. If they quote you anything over that, they are trying to sell you a treatment. Talking from personal experience here, my dad bought into a cancer treatment that cost taxpayers 250k and killed him. No one benefits from treatments, except for the government
How about avoiding microwaved food and vaccines? That would eliminate the need for everyone to chip in for your scam cancer treatment
If socialists wanted to enforce health, they'd make it illegal not to do a liver flush once a year, or whatever, instead of redistributing wealth from taxpayers to lobbyists and pharma establishment

[TomD]

It has nothing to do with conscience. It has to do with accepting the laws of nature.

Freedom... Liberty, follows nature. The genetically strong (both physically and intellectually) survive. The weak and diseased perish.

Socialism, on the other hand, breeds inter-dependence and allows over-population of a generally weakened species. In the end the tinkering fails and there is a massive and horrific de-population anyway.

Shoot the messenger if you like, but the species cannot defeat the laws of nature. Some of you would like to force me to try, against my will and against nature. I didn't make it that way, nature did.

The laws of nature then would dictate that my weakest child be prey and that my wizened mother be sacrificed.

I refute you thusly.

[Kahlil Gibran]

It has nothing to do with conscience. It has to do with accepting the laws of nature.

Freedom... Liberty, follows nature. The genetically strong (both physically and intellectually) survive. The weak and diseased perish.

Socialism, on the other hand, breeds inter-dependence and allows over-population of a generally weakened species. In the end the tinkering fails and there is a massive and horrific de-population anyway.

Shoot the messenger if you like, but the species cannot defeat the laws of nature. Some of you would like to force me to try, against my will and against nature. I didn't make it that way, nature did.

31590
Granny Wampum?

[GoldWampum]

The laws of nature then would dictate that my weakest child be prey and that my wizened mother be sacrificed.

I refute you thusly.

Truth hurts, yes.

They are naturally in that position without protection from family/tribe, are they not? So the extended answer is that if your family/tribe has the ability to protect them, they will survive, if not they will not.

Nature allows for this. Take a look at the recent lion/buffalo thread. Sometime they make it, sometimes they don't.

I correct you thusly.

[GoldWampum]

31590
Granny Wampum?

Nice try. Now try disputing the message, rather than attacking the messenger. I saw you coming.

[Kahlil Gibran]

Nice try. Now try disputing the message, rather than attacking the messenger. I saw you coming.

Nothing personal. What do we do with all our old people who can't hack it on their own? Our children with no health care? Scorpio presented the same "Libertarian" attitude in a similar thread. It is uncivilized. What's the point of everybody paying 50% of what they earn in local, state, and federal taxes?

:dontknow: what is civilization?

[GoldWampum]

Nothing personal. What do we do with all our old people who can't hack it on their own? Our children with no health care? Scorpio presented the same "Libertarian" attitude in a similar thread. It is uncivilized. What's the point of everybody paying 50% of what they earn in local, state, and federal taxes?

:dontknow: what is civilization?

I am simply observing and disclosing that if we fight those laws of nature it does not matter if we are taxed 99% of our wages to create social programs. All it does is weaken the species and set it up for massive correction (maybe even extinction), rather than the natural progression of attrition.