[mdlug-discuss] health care (was: Iraq stuff again)

[allen]

Wolfger wrote:
> On 3/26/07, allen <amajorov at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Many's the time I've asked "if socialized medicine is a
>> disaster everywhere it's been tried why will it work in America?"
>>
>
> The answer, of course, is "if it's a disaster everywhere else, then it
> probably won't work in America". Of course, there's that "if" in the 
> front,
> which I believe is a false presupposition. 
Feel free to provide examples. I don't have to cross a national border 
an example of the sort of future socialized medicine inexorably evolves 
towards: Walter Reed. In fact, the entire system with the occasional 
exception created by, generally, one person who's sufficiently tough, 
smart energetic and, let's be honest, lucky to buck the downward current 
of the system.
> If socialized medicine truly is a
> disaster everywhere it's been tried, then why do so many countries 
> keep it?
You may  believe that to be a rhetorical question but it isn't. The 
exciting illusion of a life without worry, at least about medical care, 
serves for the non-political segment of the population. For people with 
political influence there's the actuality of first-class medical care 
paid for by the taxpayer. About all that leaves is malcontents like me 
who reflexively assume that anything too good to be true, isn't.
> I think the answer is that it's *not* a disaster everywhere it's been 
> tried.
OK, where's that?
> I really haven't done any research yet to support either side of the
> argument, but I think your view is just as much in error as the
> "self-admitted liberals" you ask the question of. Everything works to a
> certain degree. Nothing is perfect. 
I don't demand perfection. I demand public policy that doesn't create 
new forms of haves and have nots which is what socialized medicine 
inevitably evolves toward. The most explicit example was the Soviet 
Union which had two hospital systems but creating that dichotomy is 
built into socialized medicine.

> The best solution to our medical care
> problems would be to change our legal system so that outrageous 
> amounts of
> money don't get awarded in lawsuits, abolish medical insurance, and let
> doctors charge reasonable fees. But far too many people (lawyers and
> insurance companies) are making far too much money to let that happen. 
And I think it's because of the amount of government interference in the 
medical industry that costs have become unsupportable. The damage done 
by the legal profession pales by comparison to the damage done by the 
business expense deduction for medical benefits.

> I think socialized health care *could be* better than the way things 
> currently
> are, depending on how it's implemented. Of course, those same people 
> have an
> interest in influencing how socialized health care is done, so it 
> probably
> won't get better. Then again, it's doubtful things will get better (or 
> even
> stay the same) if we "don't change anything". What to do?
Trust yourself and the rest of "the masses" to get things right. That's 
what all that "we the people" stuff means.

There isn't some special class of human beings who are unnaturally 
intelligent, unnaturally selfless and who, for reasons that are never 
explained, willing to take over worrisome tasks so that you never have 
to concern yourself with them again. But how often have the words "trust 
me" been precursor to disaster?

Allen