Top 1% 'richer than rest of world'

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Socia!ism is exactly what it is and there's not a damn thing wrong with it.

John

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Socia!ism is exactly what it is and there's not a damn thing wrong with it.

John

Other than it has proven itself not to work. I'm very much OK with social democracy, not so much with soc!alism.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Other than it has proven itself not to work. I'm very much OK with social democracy, not so much with soc!alism.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I prefer to use the exclamation point in place of the "l".

As you say, pure socia!ism doesn't work and social democracies do. That doesn't negate the fact that socialized medicine programs are inspired by and organized according to socia!ist principles and that they can and often do work. Equally, it's undeniable that for-profit health care and insurance does not. When providing the right type and level of care or insurance coverage is first examined on the basis of it's effect on the bottom line, we have a problem.

John

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Other than it has proven itself not to work. I'm very much OK with social democracy, not so much with soc!alism.

Whenever an authoritarian dictatorship with a so************************t system fails the failure is erroneously attributed to so************************m.

However it's authoritarian dictatorships that don't work.

So************************m works just fine with a democratic form of government.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I prefer to use the exclamation point in place of the "l".

As you say, pure socia!ism doesn't work and social democracies do. That doesn't negate the fact that socialized medicine programs are inspired by and organized according to socia!ist principles and that they can and often do work. Equally, it's undeniable that for-profit health care and insurance does not. When providing the right type and level of care or insurance coverage is first examined on the basis of it's effect on the bottom line, we have a problem.

John

I agree completely with the idea of single-payer health insurance, though it actually doesn't really adhere that strongly to soc!alist principles IMO (i.e., doctors, hospitals and labs don't work for the state or a publicly owned collective). In fact, if there's any hope for a single-payer system, trying to sell it as inspired by soc!alist principles is a sure-fire way to ensure it never happens.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I agree completely with the idea of single-payer health insurance, though it actually doesn't really adhere that strongly to soc!alist principles IMO (i.e., doctors, hospitals and labs don't work for the state or a publicly owned collective).

They do in the UK.

And that would be the system I would prefer.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I agree completely with the idea of single-payer health insurance, though it actually doesn't really adhere that strongly to soc!alist principles IMO (i.e., doctors, hospitals and labs don't work for the state or a publicly owned collective). In fact, if there's any hope for a single-payer system, trying to sell it as inspired by soc!alist principles is a sure-fire way to ensure it never happens.

Actually, in some of socialized medical systems, doctors do indeed work for the government. There's the VA, Military Health System and Britain's National Health Service where some doctors work directly for the gummint. Other systems, like "single payer" are quasi socializt because, though private doctors and non-government hospitals provide the care, the government sets standards for that care and pays the bills.

It's one thing to have a system of socialized medicine and another to sell it as such. We can quibble about how socializt is socializt but the ethos behind all such systems is decidedly socializt in nature.

John

[nailer]

How is cost of treatment determined under a single payer system, by each practicing physician and hospital, or by the single payer? Removing the insurance companies will significantly reduce costs, but health care is basically an inelastic demand in that if one needs a surgery to stay alive one will pay whatever the market will bear. Hospitals have gone corporate as have physicians, won't the drive to maximize profit remain?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

How is cost of treatment determined under a single payer system, by each practicing physician and hospital, or by the single payer? Removing the insurance companies will significantly reduce costs, but health care is basically an inelastic demand in that if one needs a surgery to stay alive one will pay whatever the market will bear. Hospitals have gone corporate as have physicians, won't the drive to maximize profit remain?

As things are now, payments are made on the basis of what the insurer considers "usual and customary". I can only think that payments made by a single payer would adhere to a similar standard. I think too that, since the profit motive wouldn't be operating in single payer, there would be less of a tendency for the payer to refuse to cover more effective but more expensive procedures, medications, protocols, etc.

John

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by nailer

How is cost of treatment determined under a single payer system, by each practicing physician and hospital, or by the single payer? Removing the insurance companies will significantly reduce costs, but health care is basically an inelastic demand in that if one needs a surgery to stay alive one will pay whatever the market will bear. Hospitals have gone corporate as have physicians, won't the drive to maximize profit remain?

As John noted it is set atr what is considered normal average for the procedure. What you must know is that Single Payer is in effect the insurer of resort, nothing else changed from the days of private insurers. Oh except that SP negotiates the prices of prescription drugs. I had my choice of doctors and the nearest hospital was a ten minute drive away. Since SP is managed by civil servants there is no seven figure CEQ.