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

[allen]

Wolfger wrote:
> 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.
>
Actually, I provided three examples and I'd welcome an example to the 
contrary. Trouble is, all the examples to the contrary don't stand up to 
scrutiny. They're fine if you don't look too closely or you'd like to 
believe there is a tooth fairy. But what you find when you do look 
closer, and past the carefully contrived facade is that they are all 
alike: gradually declining service, gradually increasing costs and 
special service for special people.
> How many military hospitals are there that *aren't* making headlines for
> being atrocious? 
Got a name?
> Why are they not examples, in your mind, of how socialized
> medicine works? 
Why are what not examples?
> 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?
If you get news of how awful the system is punctuated by long periods of 
no news that doesn't mean the system is working like a Swiss watch up 
until a few minutes before the most recent discovery of the shortcomings 
of the system. It just means no one's been looking.

>> 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 suppose but what does that have to do with coming up with a single, 
unequivocal example of the splendors of socialized medicine?
> I will not embark on your fools errand to attempt to prove a disaster 
> does not
> exist. 
You've seen right through my curiosity at the source of your certainty 
that socialized medicine results in better medical care, overall.
> 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.
Talk about sending someone on a fool's errand.
> 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.
>
But what if they're all isolated instances? A world full of isolated 
instances which would prove nothing since a single example to the 
contrary proves that somewhere, somehow it'll work and that's a good 
enough reason to enact socialized medicine everywhere. You wouldn't 
happen to know of any such proofs of the benefits of socialized medicine 
would you? Your certainty must be underpinned by something other then 
wishful thinking, right?
> 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?
>
Sure. The current system doesn't make access to medical care a function 
of political power which I find much more sinister and worrying then 
access to medicine governed by wealth.
> 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.
>
What do you mean "prefer"? It's not like there's any decision point 
where the selection is between a medical system split along lines of 
political influence and a medical system which is nobly classless. This 
is a feature of socialized medicine, not a bug.
>> 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
>
So your solution is a medical system which consists entirely of 
"government meddling"? Talk about rather poor, and unexamined, arguments.
>> 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?
Oh sure. Freedom means freedom to be misled, to be put your faith in 
insincere promises and to allow greed, or fear, to triumph over reason. 
Socialized medicine, indeed socialized anything, makes putting bad 
choices right more difficult because socialism concentrates power in the 
hands of the few and people with power will find all sorts of rationales 
to avoid relinquishing that power when they have to bother with 
rationales at all.
> Because the number of uninsured is fast approaching
> (if not already there) a majority in our democracy. 
Forty-three million isn't anywhere near a majority and even that 
number's inflated.
> Do you place more faith
> in democracy, or capitalism?
> (a true "lesser of two evils" situation)
>
I think, both, since democracy and capitalism are two faces of the same 
coin.
> 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.
>
If "quantity is insufficient" then why is it important that blind faith 
*ever* leads to other then disaster? One example to the contrary would 
then cinch the case for blind faith not being uniformly a bad idea. But 
when one party's demand for blind faith results in the acquisition of 
some important consideration then I would say the "percentage of the 
time do these words lead to disaster" is pretty close to 100%.