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

[Wolfger]

On 3/26/07, allen <amajorov at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> > 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.


Rubbish! You pick one sensationalistic example from the headlines, and claim
(with a complete lack of proof) that *all* socialized medicine results in
this. Absolute hogwash.

How many military hospitals are there that *aren't* making headlines for
being atrocious? Why are they not examples, in your mind, of how socialized
medicine works? Mind you, the U.S. military has been on this sort of
"socialized medicine" since the dawn of its existence. Doesn't seem to be
working too badly, or they'd have changed it, no?

> I think the answer is that it's *not* a disaster everywhere it's been
> > tried.
> OK, where's that?


No. Proof of a negative is, as you are probably aware, impossible. I will
not embark on your fools errand to attempt to prove a disaster does not
exist. You are claiming it *is* a disaster everywhere, so I lay the burden
of proof at your feet. I want country by country documentation of these
disasters you claim. Any country with socialized medicine for which you do
not provide solid proof of total disaster (not isolated instances, like one
single Walter Reed) is therefore considered to not be a disaster.

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.


You prefer the *current* system of haves and have nots? Socialized medicine
would create more haves, and fewer have nots. Why do you oppose that?

The most explicit example was the Soviet
> Union which had two hospital systems but creating that dichotomy is
> built into socialized medicine.


Right now we don't have two hospital systems. We just have people who can
afford treatment and people who can't afford any. I think I'd prefer two
hospital systems.

> 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.


At least we agree that government meddling created this mess. We just can't
agree on the best solution. Heck, I don't even know what the best solution
is... I'm just countering some rather poor arguments that you're making,
because I hate poor arguments. :-D

> 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.


Do you trust yourself and "the masses"? Even if those masses institute
socialized health care? Because the number of uninsured is fast approaching
(if not already there) a majority in our democracy. Do you place more faith
in democracy, or capitalism?
(a true "lesser of two evils" situation)

But how often have the words "trust
> me" been precursor to disaster?


Quantity is insufficient. The right question is "what percentage of the time
do these words lead to disaster?" I think you'll find that "trust me" leads
to disaster, but far less often than it leads to help.

-- 
Wolfger
http://randomsynapsefiring.eponym.com/
AOL IM: wolf4coyot
Yahoo!Messenger: wolfgersilberbaer
Skype: wolfger88
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mdlug.org/pipermail/mdlug-discuss/attachments/20070327/600d5b39/attachment-0001.html>