|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 13, 2009 20:35:39 GMT -8
I realize that this is just one case and, for that reason, I don't offer it as a condemnation of the entire British national health system. In fact, neither does the author. Still, this piece does make some good points regarding how attitudes toward the customer change when the government is in total control. Yes, yes, I know that "total control" is not what Obama is peddling. Still, there is some food for thought here. I might also add that "total control" is effectively a synonym for monopoly. It there were just one supermarket chain in your state, I have no doubt that the attitude of that chain's employees would become pretty much the same as that of the British health care workers mentioned in this article. A monopoly is, generally, not good, whether it be a government one or private enterprise. (I except, of course, natural monopolies, such as very small towns not big enough to support two hardware stores or two motels.) www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/The-everyday-privations-of-health-care-rationing-8096262.htmlAzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 14, 2009 7:03:32 GMT -8
But again, Britain is an extreme example in that they own the hospitals. That's not the case in other countries with socialized medicine.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 14, 2009 11:37:33 GMT -8
But again, Britain is an extreme example in that they own the hospitals. That's not the case in other countries with socialized medicine. =Bob Good point. Still, the more tightly the government regulates hospitals, insurance companies, medical schools, medical device manufacturers, etc, the closer we get to a UK style system. As you know, I prefer free market solutions to government run institutions (with obvious exceptions such as courts, highway systems, air traffic control, etc.) Obama apparently is unwilling even to consider such solutions. Worse yet, he is now targeting private enterprise (the health insurance companies which, by the way, are nowhere near the most profitable of American companies) for vilification. (It seems to me that those Americans who are most unhappy with free enterprise have sensed that an out and out take over of industry in this country will never fly. Well, I thought that before Obama semi-nationalized big parts of industry this year. Any way, short of actually sending czars to run companies in place of their current management, every tighter regulation can achieve just about the same results as de jure nationalization.) What bothers me is that the Obama people seem to be ignorant of the problems associated with government run health care, in denial regarding those problems, or, worst of all, just don't care so long as their concept of "social justice" prevails. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 15, 2009 10:23:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 15, 2009 11:06:30 GMT -8
If I were to be really cruel, I could argue that those who would speak badly of the NHS are unable to do so since they would have to be dug up first. ;D But, seriously, as someone posted sometime back, socialized medicine is probably all right if you aren't really sick or do not need really expensive treatment (AIDS medicine, hip replacements, etc.). The fact that, even in Britain, people still spend their own money (which is in addition to the money they pay in taxes) for supplementary private insurance tells us something. The fact is that there are plenty of ways we could improve our system of health care delivery without a complete or even major take over by the government. The Democrats, who are convinced that only government can solve this problem, simply won't consider those alternative ways. Sen. Wyden and a GOP colleague (can't remember his name now) have a plan that sounds very interesting. Why won't Obama look at it and announce his support? AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 15, 2009 13:55:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 15, 2009 18:14:57 GMT -8
I will never disagree that there are problems with the Brit medical system. I have stated often that it is the worse case scenario. But the point is that the Brits would like to see their health care system reformed but do not want to get rid of it. As was pointed out in the article I linked, advocating doing away with the system would be political suicide, just as it would be in Canada. As the gentleman points out, An increasing number of us take out private health insurance, and many others would like to do so if they could only afford to, which hardly indicates unbounded confidence in the NHS.It seems to me that Secure Horizons and other senior insurance providers do a pretty decent business from picking up the slack on Medicare. The problem is the insurance industry doesn't want to pick up the slack, they want the field all to themselves because they are making obscene profits. The notion that those who can afford it should get decent health care while the rest can just bugger off is typical of Social Darwinism. After all, the poor deserve what they get because they aren't capable of being anything more than poor. So of course, the right-wing (and, unfortunately, too many Democrats) continue to take big bucks from the insurance companies and fight anything that would allow lower wage people to get health insurance. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 16, 2009 15:14:56 GMT -8
>>Social Darwinism<< This is a tired and ancient epithet. I'm sure you were spoon fed this concept by your perfessers, =Perfesser. "To ask how the epithet social Darwinism functioned, on the other hand, is to turn the conventional account rather literally on its head. Not only was there no school (or schools) of social Darwinists: the term was a label one pinned upon anyone with whom one especially disagreed. The so-called "conservative" social Darwinists of the 1880s (laissez faire liberals, utilitarians, and the like) were, as social Darwinists, the invention of their opponents to the left. Eventually, the label was used, not merely to caricature the "let-alone-philosophy" (as it was termed), but to denigrate programs of other state activists one happened to oppose, whether New Liberals, fellow socialists, or eugenicists.""To charge "social Darwinism" is to say "case closed," as Archie Bunker would put it. The result, as Wilson observed in response to the "self-righteous vigilantism" of the Boston group, is to threaten "the spirit of free inquiry and discussion crucial to the health of the intellectual community."www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rbannis1/SD.preface.htmlAlso: "For about seventy years now we have all been indoctrinated to believe that biological Darwinism came first and was pure, good, and true; and that Social Darwinism was its corruption-wicked and false. Actually, there's no doubt that laissez-faire economics really did come first. Darwin unconsciously borrowed from it. What is more surprising is that Social Darwinism may one day be recognized as embodying a truth that is absent from Darwinism itself. With socialist economies collapsing everywhere, a theory of Social Darwinism can now be stated in such a way that those who oppose it might seem more ideological than those who espouse it: Societies in which firms are permitted to compete (i.e., to "adapt") without subsidy or bailout will be more prosperous and will enjoy greater social harmony than all others."findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n8_v41/ai_7562281/ |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 16, 2009 21:19:22 GMT -8
I think the Daily Mail column is very important. I wish all Americans would read it and other even-handed reviews of health care in this and other countries.
A very crucial point is made by one of the respondents. That is the fact that everyone gets health care in the U.S. Sure, many times it is in ERs when the patient should have seen an MD much earlier, but it is good care nonetheless. Better than in the UK, if the Daily Mail article is correct.
But to me one of the most obvious faults of the British system (yes, Bob, I keep in mind that the NHS is not really being proposed. . . thank god!) is the same fault that causes many of us to criticize the USPS (by the way, I think most USPS workers do a pretty good job, but never mind). Namely, if there is not an ever-present threat of getting fired or down-sized by more aggressive and customer-oriented competitors, one becomes complacent.
But here's the biggest danger; once the feds take over a function, which means all private sources of the service disappear, it can really never be privatized again. That's why it is so important that Obamacare be defeated and a new start, one hopes a truly bipartisan start, can give us an improved health care and insurance system that is not caught up in the politically charged special interest quagmire that is the U.S. government.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 17, 2009 8:24:13 GMT -8
>>Social Darwinism<< This is a tired and ancient epithet. I'm sure you were spoon fed this concept by your perfessers, =Perfesser. Actually, I don't recall my profs using the term. I first ran into it in a book titled "Social Darwinism in American Thought" by Richard Hofstadter. But the links you offer are not very good because the term describes a rather complex series of thoughts, not necessarily just economic thoughts. Believers in eugenics have tended to be found on both sides of the political spectrum and they have been referred to in the past as Social Darwinists, for example. Nor do I specifically use the term to describe laize faire economic thought, given that I believe in strong economic competition. I use it when I see someone who appears to be claiming that those who've got the bucks are always superior to those who do not. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 17, 2009 8:27:36 GMT -8
I But to me one of the most obvious faults of the British system (yes, Bob, I keep in mind that the NHS is not really being proposed. . . thank god!) AzWm According to Chuck Todd, who I think is very reputable, Watch the Senate Finance Committee bill because that's the one the WH is focused on. He said that there are days when the WH is in contact with Baucus on an almost hourly basis. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 17, 2009 14:38:17 GMT -8
>>Social Darwinism<< This is a tired and ancient epithet. I'm sure you were spoon fed this concept by your perfessers, =Perfesser. Actually, I don't recall my profs using the term. I first ran into it in a book titled "Social Darwinism in American Thought" by Richard Hofstadter. But the links you offer are not very good because the term describes a rather complex series of thoughts, not necessarily just economic thoughts. Believers in eugenics have tended to be found on both sides of the political spectrum and they have been referred to in the past as Social Darwinists, for example. Nor do I specifically use the term to describe laize faire economic thought, given that I believe in strong economic competition. I use it when I see someone who appears to be claiming that those who've got the bucks are always superior to those who do not. =Bob I think you use the term for the purpose the Swarthmore article (which does reference Hofstadter) suggests: "To charge "social Darwinism" is to say "case closed," as Archie Bunker would put it."As for seeing someone who "appears to be claiming that those who've got the bucks are always superior...", I haven't seen anyone on here make that claim. If some people can afford a Mercedes, and some people can't, it doesn't follow that everyone ought to be limited to buying a Ford Focus. But that's what the Demagogue Plan attempts to do: Read it on page 16. Everyone eventually gets stuffed into one size fits all. The Liberal wet dream of forced egalitarianism, the reduction of everyone to the lowest common denominator. To those of you who don't know where to find the bill, it's here: docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-Bill…Oh, one other thing. On the subject of "claiming... to be superior..." How come those slime buckets in Congress have specifically exempted their own sorry, rotten asses from what they want to force down everyone else's throats? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 17, 2009 16:20:24 GMT -8
davdesid board=hcins thread=86 post=702 time=1250548697] I think you use the term for the purpose the Swarthmore article (which does reference Hofstadter) suggests: "To charge "social Darwinism" is to say "case closed," as Archie Bunker would put it."Sorry, but I use the term as I see fit. It really didn't matter what the Swarthmore article stated. It's what I stated as to what I react to in using the term.As for seeing someone who "appears to be claiming that those who've got the bucks are always superior...", I haven't seen anyone on here make that claim. I disagree. I see Social Darwinism, or if you'd prefer, elitism, in most of the right-wing arguments against public health care. Hell, we see it most every day from Pooh.If some people can afford a Mercedes, and some people can't, it doesn't follow that everyone ought to be limited to buying a Ford Focus. I've never argued that they do not. You assume I have some sort of "class envy" that I don't have. I was very happy with my final year's salary at the County even though it was around 68 grand a year. With no kids I never had to make all that much in the way of bucks and given the fact that my wife is even more penurious than I am, all more bucks would have meant was more of the rat-race that I never cared to deal with.
But I grew up watching my mother, who in no manner is "stupid" working to support me and my Grandmother at a minimum wage job that required her to be on her feet 8 hours a day. It may be anecdotal, but I've always found it to be an example of how badly service workers are underpaid as well as an example of how badly they are viewed.But that's what the Demagogue Plan attempts to do: Read it on page 16. Everyone eventually gets stuffed into one size fits all. The Liberal wet dream of forced egalitarianism, the reduction of everyone to the lowest common denominator. To those of you who don't know where to find the bill, it's here: docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-Bill…As I've already noted, none of the 3 House bills are Obama's focus - the Senate Finance Committee bill is where the WH is focused. Bringing up what the House wants is just a red herring.Oh, one other thing. On the subject of "claiming... to be superior..." How come those slime buckets in Congress have specifically exempted their own sorry, rotten asses from what they want to force down everyone else's throats? Ask the Republicans. Ain't like any of them are bitching about it. But then again, they're too busy proclaiming themselves masters of the universe down at "The Family" headquarters to bother with such mundane matters.=Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 17, 2009 16:35:23 GMT -8
>>>How come those slime buckets in Congress have specifically exempted their own sorry, rotten asses from what they want to force down everyone else's throats?<<<me
>>Ask the Republicans.<<<the =Perfesser
You can't blame the Republicans any more. Give it up.
Your filthy party can do anything it wants now. They are squarely in the barrel now. No excuses.
And it's going to be fun, fun, fun!
In fact, it's already a delight seeing these maggots starting to squirm like the filthy maggots they are.
|
|
