Difference between revisions of "Socialized medicine"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Loss of incentives to create new drugs/treatments: edit)
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
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. }}  
 +
 +
==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. 
  
  
 
==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==
+
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.
  
 
==Loss of incentives to create new drugs/treatments==
 
==Loss of incentives to create new drugs/treatments==

Revision as of 22:57, 31 August 2009

Diagram of Democratic proposals for so-called "reform."

Socialized Medicine is health care as supplied by a monopolistic or heavily-subsidized and regulated universal health care State system.


Ronald Reagan said [1]:


One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. . . . Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

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.

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.


Loss of personal incentive to find better service or products

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.

Loss of incentives to create new drugs/treatments

The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June 2009 explaining the Obama administration's goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating "high cost, low-value treatments," by "implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt," and by "directly targeting individual providers . . . (and other) high-end outliers."

Obama emphasized the importance of limiting services to "health care that works." To identify such care, he provided more than $1 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to jump-start Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory council. Comparative effectiveness would become the vehicle for deciding whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in health care to justify cost. The existence of such a program in the U.S. similiar the British NHS's Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) would not only deny lifesaving care but would also cast a pall over medical researchers who would fear that government experts might reject their discoveries as "too expensive."[1]

Loss of personal income to the government

If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then a financial penalty will be assessed. Under this particular proposal for Obamacare care, the penalty is calculated by multiplying the number of uncovered months times the weighted average of the monthly premium for a plan in the person’s coverage class and coverage area, plus 15 percent.[2]

Loss of health care quality

Loss of privacy

Loss of liberty

See also

References