Socialism

[crazy canuck]

You guys didn't have a monolithic medical guild already in place with a stranglehold on the entire profession when you tried to implement it. Our doctors control our system, not the other way around.

Actually I think we did.  Before we started implementing these changes our two systems were very similar.  I think the main difference is that you have many more state governments than we do provincial governments.  This change was led by the Provinces.  I dont think the same kind of change would be led by your states.

[garbon]

You guys didn't have a monolithic medical guild already in place with a stranglehold on the entire profession when you tried to implement it. Our doctors control our system, not the other way around.

They'd probably say the insurers.

[Malthus]

If I may summarize (and correct me where I'm wrong) the thesis goes like this:

"Socialism" is nothing more than the term for a society putting resources taken from individuals towards the common good, which every society does to a greater or lesser extent. The existence of "socialism" in modern societies in the form we are familiar with - that is, the welfare state - is a function of the vast increase in productivity within those societies in the very recent past. In order to determine how much (or how little) "socialism" we ought to have, we need to take an objective look at the amount of productivity actually available and measure it against needs, rather than be swayed by arguments about "rights" to such entitlements.

So far, so good.

The problem, to my mind, is that there is rational, unbiased actor that can decide such matters. "Socialism" did not arise because of human kindness, or even, simply because the resources were available to create it; it arose from heated political battles of the sort that are still going on today, resulting in all sorts of inefficiencies and absurd compromises. Unfortunately, such stuff is the inevitable product of our political system, and attempts to make it more rational have, to date, not fared well. 

[Admiral Yi]

They'd probably say the insurers.

Insurers compete with each other.  The AMA has a monopoly.

[garbon]

They'd probably say the insurers.

Insurers compete with each other.  The AMA has a monopoly.

Yeah but if the insurers won't cover the treatment...

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah but if the insurers won't cover the treatment...

....?

[Jacob]

Yeah but if the insurers won't cover the treatment...

Then there's a market opportunity! 

[grumbler]

I am not sure whether this kind of iterative process would meet your definition of "rational".

It would if the process was designed to actually improve the health care system, as opposed to pleasing campaign contributors or buying votes.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure whether this kind of iterative process would meet your definition of "rational".

It would if the process was designed to actually improve the health care system, as opposed to pleasing campaign contributors or buying votes.

It both improved the system and appealed to voters.

[garbon]

Yeah but if the insurers won't cover the treatment...

Then there's a market opportunity! 

Well presumably they aren't covering it because it isn't a high profit-generating choice.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah but if the insurers won't cover the treatment...

Then there's a market opportunity! 

Well presumably they aren't covering it because it isn't a high profit-generating choice.

A good summation of what is wrong with your system.

[garbon]

Yeah but if the insurers won't cover the treatment...

Then there's a market opportunity! 

Well presumably they aren't covering it because it isn't a high profit-generating choice.

A good summation of what is wrong with your system.

Well yes and no. I mean someone does need to pay for that risky/expensive/experimental treatment...but then yeah if the person doesn't get it and there are further health complications (/condition continues) then presumably it could cost more to care for them than if they'd been properly treated from the start.

[The Minsky Moment]

Insurers compete with each other.

Weakly.  It's a classic example of monopolistic competition.
The force of competition is also weakened by the fact that the end users usually have no choice.  their employers choose for them.

[alfred russel]

The social safety net idea in practical terms has been around since the beginning of western civilization. The Romans had it, and after Rome fell the church filled the role (people had to tithe, and the church had to provide for the poor).

[Sheilbh]

Actually I think we did.  Before we started implementing these changes our two systems were very similar.  I think the main difference is that you have many more state governments than we do provincial governments.  This change was led by the Provinces.  I dont think the same kind of change would be led by your states.

Same in the UK. There was some council based health services, especially in London and some charities, but the overwhelming majority was private. The biggest problem was the doctors. The BMA withheld their services and threatened to not participate with the NHS (doctors wrote to newspapers saying it was the first step to a Gestapo). It was solved because Nye Bevan, in his words, 'stuffed their mouths with gold'