Reviving the ole "socialized medicine" bogeyman. BOO!!!!
Harry Hope
From The Washington Post, 10/8/07:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701033.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
'Socialized Medicine' Quackery
By Ezekiel J. Emanuel
Monday, October 8, 2007; Page A17
Nearly two decades after the West's victory over communism, one might
have thought it possible to discuss reform of the health-care system
without invocations of the old saw "socialized medicine."
But no.
"At least Mr. Baucus isn't disguising his socialist goal," a Wall
Street Journal editorial claimed about the Montana senator's push to
expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
"In sum, SCHIP turns out to be socialized medicine for 'kids,' " wrote
Post columnist Robert Novak.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the "SCHIP bill is not a back door to get
socialized medicine. They went straight to the front door."
Rudy Giuliani argued:
"The American way is not single-payer, government-controlled anything.
That's a European way of doing something; that's frankly a socialist
way of doing something."
Apparently, this old bogeyman is just too tempting.
The U.S. health-care system has two distinct parts -- financing and
delivery.
The financing system is how we pay for health-care services.
It is composed of employer-based insurance, the individual insurance
market, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, the veterans health system and
other programs.
Today, the private part -- employer-based coverage and individual
insurance -- accounts for just under 55 percent of all payments for
health care, while government contributes about 45 percent.
The delivery system consists of about 850,000 doctors, 5,000
acute-care hospitals, 39,000 pharmacies and 8,100 home health
agencies, as well as hospices, surgical centers, radiological centers,
laboratories and other outlets that provide the actual health-care
services Americans need.
To the extent that any health insurance scheme involves spreading
among members of society the financial risk of getting sick, all
insurance "socializes" the risk.
This is, of course, not what people mean when they level charges of
"socialized medicine."
This term is never used in reference to police protection, fire
departments or highways -- all of which are provided by government.
Properly speaking, socialism is when the state owns or controls the
means of production.
Thus "socialized medicine" is when the doctors are state employees;
when the hospitals, drugstores, home health agencies and other
facilities are owned and controlled by the government.
Only one part of the U.S. system really is socialized medicine: the
veterans' health-care system, which is wholly owned and operated by
the federal government.
Veterans love the system and vigorously oppose any suggestions of
dismantling it and integrating them into civilian health care.
By many measures, this bastion of socialized medicine may constitute
the highest-quality and most efficient part of American health care.
Socialized medicine cannot mean that the government pays for part or
all of health care while it is provided by doctors in their private
practices and at private and (frequently) for-profit hospitals,
commercial drugstores and the rest.
If that were the case, Medicare would be socialized medicine.
Maybe the people throwing around that epithet believe Medicare is
"socialized medicine," but they certainly have not told the elderly --
who are well satisfied by Medicare.
Most do not have the courage to openly oppose -- and seek to end --
Medicare because it is "socialized medicine."
Indeed, some of those who invoke the epithet have praised, as Novak
put it, the "popular private Medicare program."
None of the proposals by the three major Democratic presidential
candidates can be characterized as socialized medicine.
None calls for government ownership or control over U.S. hospitals,
drugstores or home health agencies, or for making doctors employees of
the federal or state governments.
Indeed, the proposals by Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack
Obama retain and even include measures to expand the private
employer-based insurance system.
Similarly, the SCHIP bill Congress passed would increase government
funding to provide health coverage to more children.
But the bill would not change the delivery system.
Children would still get their care from doctors in private practice
and through the regular hospitals, home health agencies, etc. that the
rest of us use.
It is absurd to call an expansion of government payments for health
care in the existing private delivery system socialized medicine.
Politics may be full of hype, exaggeration or partisan bickering, but
there should be no place for overt deception.
A serious debate about whether and how to reform the American
health-care system requires that we eliminate comments whose only
purpose is to mischaracterize and misinform.
Those who invoke the specter of "socialized medicine" should answer
this question:
Do you think the government should help fund medical care for those
who cannot afford it, just as it funds education for children whose
parents cannot afford to educate them?
If not, say so explicitly and justify your position.
But, please, spare us the derogatory language.
___________________________________
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE....BOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Harry
Jerry Okamura
do you control prices when the person using the service is not the one
paying for the service. Think of it this way. Say the government decides
that they will subsidize a large percentage of Americans when they go out
and shop for food. After all, food is a heck of a lot more important to
every persons survival than medical care is. What happens then? What
incentive does the seller of food have in selling some foods cheaper than
other foods? What incentive does the consumer of foods have in buying
cheaper foods, rather than more expensive foods?
"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:uj8lg3tft36hrcv5c...@4ax.com...
Florida
> From The Washington Post, 10/8/07:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR200...
Excellent. I'm printing it out to post next to the computer.
LarsensAttack
Harry Hope wrote:
> From The Washington Post, 10/8/07:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701033.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
>
> 'Socialized Medicine' Quackery
>
> By Ezekiel J. Emanuel
>
> Monday, October 8, 2007; Page A17
>
>
> Nearly two decades after the West's victory over communism, one might
> have thought it possible to discuss reform of the health-care system
> without invocations of the old saw "socialized medicine."
>
> But no.
No indeed. Too much money involved. The Health Care
industry will spend billions buying politicians and TV
coverage to prevent the US from ever caring for its
people.
--
B3
==
The very wealthy HATE Democracy.
Vote accordingly in '08.
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Pelosi POWERLESS - Just another granny, not really Speaker.
Voters await 3rd party; any party will do!
Voters await any other POTUS candidate to save them from
the current selection....
LarsensAttack
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> The issue is not whether it is socialized medicine or not, the issue is,
> how do you control prices when the person using the service is not the
> one paying for the service.
You're obsessed with the concept like you come from a family
of ants who eat their injured. Think humans are insects?
Everyone pays for everyone else by means
of tax deductions. If you're not working, you are still covered.
Everyone is from a newborn to a 105 year old granny. The government
negotiates bulk prices for the drugs and equipment based on buying
power.
Its the only decent and HUMANE system.
Jerry Okamura
"LarsensAttack" <BayonetVariation.net> wrote in message
news:I86dnfWOXr9sRpfa...@comcast.com...
>
>
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> The issue is not whether it is socialized medicine or not, the issue is,
>> how do you control prices when the person using the service is not the
>> one paying for the service.
>
> You're obsessed with the concept like you come from a family
> of ants who eat their injured. Think humans are insects?
>
> Everyone pays for everyone else by means
> of tax deductions. If you're not working, you are still covered.
> Everyone is from a newborn to a 105 year old granny. The government
> negotiates bulk prices for the drugs and equipment based on buying
> power.
>
> Its the only decent and HUMANE system.
>