Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,469
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 10:
Line 10: − − ==Benefits== − − Despite the negative bias towards government provided health care, there are actually many benefits to such systems. One only has to look at the many other successful health care systems already operating around the world. The most obvious benefit is that in principle, all residents of a country have an equal opportunity to receive necessary health care. Systems that rely on the individual to privately organise and subsidise their own health care often leave poorer individuals without adequate care, because of lack of funds. Such a system has an “aristocratic bias” which many would argue provides a good incentive for each individual to expand their capital. Unfortunately, the system is biased towards wealthier individuals from the start, so it hinders the ability of poorer individual’s to expand their capital, resulting in the “rich stay rich, poor stay poor” equilibrium. − − An indirect benefit of social health care is the narrowing of this gap of wealth distribution, allowing members of the lower socioeconomic demography to become more productive within their society and contribute more towards the country’s GDP. − − Since health care is a basic human need, the degree to which it is required is independent of wealth. So makes sense for the means by which it is provided to be independent of wealth also. The same principle validates so-called ‘social’ education, policing, defence and natural disaster control. − As long as private health care corporations exist, there will not be a loss on incentive to find a better service. Sensible health care platforms offer bare essential and emergency health care to everyone through government health care, and optional or higher quality health care, with shorter waiting times, to members of society who can afford the privilege. Since most people would prefer this privilege to the 'bare bones' of health care, most people would still have the incentive to find and work for better health care.+ − − ==Competition in Social Health Care== − − Social health care does not diminish competition when carried out by a democratic government, since the ruling party has to provide a better health care platform than their opposition. Unlike the competitive objectives of private corporations, which measure success by profit, the success of government health care is measured by the ability to provide care, and the quality of the care received by the individual. The party must supply the best health care to the individual or lose the possibility of re-election. The result is better health care for all members of society, not just richer or poorer members.
Socialized medicine (view source)
Revision as of 05:00, September 1, 2009
, 05:00, September 1, 2009Reverted edits by Ruaid (Talk) to last version by RobSmith
The doctor begins to lose freedom. . . . First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then doctors aren’t equally divided geographically. So a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him, you can't live in that town. They already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it's only a short step to dictating where he will go. . . . All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay. And pretty soon your son won't decide, when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do. }}
The doctor begins to lose freedom. . . . First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then doctors aren’t equally divided geographically. So a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him, you can't live in that town. They already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it's only a short step to dictating where he will go. . . . All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay. And pretty soon your son won't decide, when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do. }}
==Loss of personal incentive to find better service or products==
==Loss of personal incentive to find better service or products==
==Lack of competition in health care==
==Loss of incentives to create new drugs/treatments==
==Loss of incentives to create new drugs/treatments==