Just for kicks, I punched in “Socialized medicine” within the Wikipedia “empire” and found a few interesting biased tidbits. I follow this with portions of a redeeming article entitled “Socialized Medicine: The Canadian Experience” which provides a staunch, fact filled rebuttal. First, it does not take long for the reader to realize how antagonistic this Wikipedia entry is to those who oppose the tenants of Socialized medicine. Conservatives especially seem to be a target:
The term is often used in the U.S to create an understanding that the health care system would be run by the government, thereby associating it with socialism, which has negative connotations in American political culture. As such its usage is controversial and at odds with the views of staunch right wingers in other countries prepared to defend socialized medicine such as Margaret Thatcher. and it has been pointed out that any form of group insurance is a collective act of socialism.
In 1961, Ronald Reagan recorded a disc entitled Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine exhorting its audience to abhor the "dangers" which socialized medicine could bring. (Great speech, by the way)
The term came up again in the 2008 U.S presidential election by Republicans. In July 2007, Rudy Giuliani, front-runner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, attacked the health care plans of Democratic presidential candidates as socialized medicine that was European and socialist.
The debate in the U.S. over rationing has enraged some in the UK and statements made by politicians such as Sarah Palin and Chuck Grassley resulted in a mass internet protest on web sites such as Twitter and Facebook under the banner title "WelovetheNHS"
In more recent times the term has gained a more positive reappraisal. Documentary movie maker Michael Moore in his documentary Sicko pointed out that Americans do not talk about public libraries or the police or the fire department as being "socialized" and nor do they have negative opinions of these. Media personalities such as Oprah Winfey have also weighed in behind the concept of public involvement in healthcare.
Some in the U.S claim that socialized medicine would reduce health care quality. The quantitative evidence for this claim is not clear.
Opponents claim that socialized medicine would require higher taxes but international comparisons do not support this.
Antagonism towards free market capitalism is freely displayed but poorly defined:
Some supporters argue that government involvement in health care would reduce costs not just because of the exercise of monopsony power, e.g. in drug purchasing but also because it eliminates profit margins and administrative overhead associated with private insurance, and because it can make use of economies of scale in administration. In certain circumstances, a volume purchaser may be able to guarantee sufficient volume to reduce overall prices while providing greater profitability to the seller, such as in so-called 'purchase commitment' programs.
Well, you get the idea! Retreating hastily from Wikipedia I was able to garner a great deal more perspective when I surfed over to http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html where I found an interesting article entitled: Socialized Medicine: The Canadian Experience by Pierre Lemieux. He writes:
The first thing to realize is that free public medicine isn't really free. What the consumer doesn't pay, the taxpayer does, and with a vengeance. Public health expenditures in Quebec amount to 29 per cent of the provincial government budget. One-fifth of the revenues come from a wage tax of 3.22 per cent charged to employers and the rest comes from general taxes at the provincial and federal levels. It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the public health system. This means that the average two-child family pays close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much more expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan…… As demand rises and expensive technology is introduced, health costs soar. But with taxes already at a breaking point, government has little recourse but to try to hold down costs. In Quebec, hospitals have been facing budget cuts both in operating expenses and in capital expenditures. Hospital equipment is often outdated, and the number of general hospital beds dropped by 21 per cent from 1972 to 1980.
When prices are zero, demand exceeds supply, and queues form. For many Canadians, hospital emergency rooms have become their primary doctor -- as is the case with Medicaid patients in the United States. Patients lie in temporary beds in emergency rooms, sometimes for days.
The most visible consequence of socialized medicine in Canada is in the poor quality of services. Health care has become more and more impersonal. Patients often feel they are on an assembly line. Doctors and hospitals already have more patients than they can handle and no financial incentive to provide good service. Their customers are not the ones who write the checks anyway.
Additional links, articles and figures detailing widespread and specific problems in countries with varying degrees of socialized health care can be found at:
The term is often used in the U.S to create an understanding that the health care system would be run by the government, thereby associating it with socialism, which has negative connotations in American political culture. As such its usage is controversial and at odds with the views of staunch right wingers in other countries prepared to defend socialized medicine such as Margaret Thatcher. and it has been pointed out that any form of group insurance is a collective act of socialism.
In 1961, Ronald Reagan recorded a disc entitled Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine exhorting its audience to abhor the "dangers" which socialized medicine could bring. (Great speech, by the way)
The term came up again in the 2008 U.S presidential election by Republicans. In July 2007, Rudy Giuliani, front-runner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, attacked the health care plans of Democratic presidential candidates as socialized medicine that was European and socialist.
The debate in the U.S. over rationing has enraged some in the UK and statements made by politicians such as Sarah Palin and Chuck Grassley resulted in a mass internet protest on web sites such as Twitter and Facebook under the banner title "WelovetheNHS"
Now notice who is attributed for giving a positive appraisal of Socialized medicine:
In more recent times the term has gained a more positive reappraisal. Documentary movie maker Michael Moore in his documentary Sicko pointed out that Americans do not talk about public libraries or the police or the fire department as being "socialized" and nor do they have negative opinions of these. Media personalities such as Oprah Winfey have also weighed in behind the concept of public involvement in healthcare.
Statements like the following are eager to dismiss the arguments of the other side with vague, non-factual assumptions:
Some in the U.S claim that socialized medicine would reduce health care quality. The quantitative evidence for this claim is not clear.
Opponents claim that socialized medicine would require higher taxes but international comparisons do not support this.
Antagonism towards free market capitalism is freely displayed but poorly defined:
Some supporters argue that government involvement in health care would reduce costs not just because of the exercise of monopsony power, e.g. in drug purchasing but also because it eliminates profit margins and administrative overhead associated with private insurance, and because it can make use of economies of scale in administration. In certain circumstances, a volume purchaser may be able to guarantee sufficient volume to reduce overall prices while providing greater profitability to the seller, such as in so-called 'purchase commitment' programs.
Well, you get the idea! Retreating hastily from Wikipedia I was able to garner a great deal more perspective when I surfed over to http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html where I found an interesting article entitled: Socialized Medicine: The Canadian Experience by Pierre Lemieux. He writes:
The first thing to realize is that free public medicine isn't really free. What the consumer doesn't pay, the taxpayer does, and with a vengeance. Public health expenditures in Quebec amount to 29 per cent of the provincial government budget. One-fifth of the revenues come from a wage tax of 3.22 per cent charged to employers and the rest comes from general taxes at the provincial and federal levels. It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the public health system. This means that the average two-child family pays close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much more expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan…… As demand rises and expensive technology is introduced, health costs soar. But with taxes already at a breaking point, government has little recourse but to try to hold down costs. In Quebec, hospitals have been facing budget cuts both in operating expenses and in capital expenditures. Hospital equipment is often outdated, and the number of general hospital beds dropped by 21 per cent from 1972 to 1980.
When prices are zero, demand exceeds supply, and queues form. For many Canadians, hospital emergency rooms have become their primary doctor -- as is the case with Medicaid patients in the United States. Patients lie in temporary beds in emergency rooms, sometimes for days.
The most visible consequence of socialized medicine in Canada is in the poor quality of services. Health care has become more and more impersonal. Patients often feel they are on an assembly line. Doctors and hospitals already have more patients than they can handle and no financial incentive to provide good service. Their customers are not the ones who write the checks anyway.
Additional links, articles and figures detailing widespread and specific problems in countries with varying degrees of socialized health care can be found at:
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html
Such as: Worldwide Experiments in Socialism
· Great Britain · Other European Countries · Canada · Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics · Cuba · New Zealand · Australia
Recommend reading also includes David G. Green and Laura Casper's economic report, Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer to see the inevitable outcome of the necessary rationing of government health care.
Such as: Worldwide Experiments in Socialism
· Great Britain · Other European Countries · Canada · Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics · Cuba · New Zealand · Australia
Recommend reading also includes David G. Green and Laura Casper's economic report, Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer to see the inevitable outcome of the necessary rationing of government health care.
No comments:
Post a Comment