The Intellectual Cover for Socialism


the caracal kid
#31
i agree with you pretty much jay.

when the government subsidizes anything it inhibits the development of alternatives. The government should get out of subsidizing electricity, oil, etc.

However, it should still play a strong role in controling these industries (and all industries).
 
Jay
#32
Many people equate privatization with deregulation, and of course this isn't true.


Alberta's oil is another matter though. The province does have the right to that oil.
 
the caracal kid
#33
yes, alberta can keep their oil, and continue to get poor royalties on it as well. The governments should not be subsidizing the oil industry though for the same reasons you described about hydro ontario. Let the oil companies fund themselves, and let the end-user pay the real price for the commodity. (won't happen though because north america is too hooked on cheap gas)
 
tracy
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by tracy

Quote: Originally Posted by Lifestream

What's the problem with mixed healthcare? There are some private schools, why not "some" private clinics/hospitals?

Perhaps we have a false dilemma on our hands here?

Look at the UK system and that would be my answer.

Private hospitals/clinics will only take the easy, money making surgeries. They get to keep the profits that would normally be reinvested in care. They will leave public facilities with everything unprofitable resulting in even less funding for public healthcare.

Couldn't we solve that issue by having the government subsidize personal insurance payments? IE if you meet a certain criteria the government picks up a portion of your insurance payment?

Would that result in anything different? I don't see how.
 
tracy
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

The author speaks of a pure socialist system. Many posters have suggested a middle of the road approach, my question would be, how much middle of the road do we go? How about an example of a successful middle of the road country? In other words when does socialism become too much?

I would think every country with any government owned industries or social safety nets were at least a little socialist. So, the USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Netherlands, New Zealand, and pretty much every other western nation would be considered middle of the road. How far we go depends on the country I guess. I actually would consider both Canada and the USA successful countries, I've enjoyed living in both of them.
 
Finder
#36
I don't like when people coin socialism... Often when I hear people say those words they are not coining the policies of the Social Democratic, Liberal and "Red" Tory's, but trying to pin on them negitive terms of Marxist socialism, aka: Communism, Scientfic socialism Marxist-Leninism and so on. These parties have nothing to very little in common with the negitive connnection which Right-Libertiarians and Neo-con's often try to lable the above mentioned.

I admit I lean to the right inside the NDP a little bit more then some people do. But Most NDPers only care about things like social justice, and social saft nets. Never in it's history has the NDP/CCF ever adopted Marxism. In fact it was founded by Chrsitain Socialists (thats what they were called in the day). Today I think the most radical thing you could find in the NDP would be a social-libertarian trend.
 
Jay
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by tracy

Quote: Originally Posted by Lifestream

What's the problem with mixed healthcare? There are some private schools, why not "some" private clinics/hospitals?

Perhaps we have a false dilemma on our hands here?

Look at the UK system and that would be my answer.

Private hospitals/clinics will only take the easy, money making surgeries. They get to keep the profits that would normally be reinvested in care. They will leave public facilities with everything unprofitable resulting in even less funding for public healthcare.

Couldn't we solve that issue by having the government subsidize personal insurance payments? IE if you meet a certain criteria the government picks up a portion of your insurance payment?

Would that result in anything different? I don't see how.

It would be very difficult for hospitals and such to weed out the easy money....

There wouldn't be any public hospitals at all. If the government needed to subsidize a persons health insurance, the hospital wouldn't even know about it.
 
Jay
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

I don't like when people coin socialism... Often when I hear people say those words they are not coining the policies of the Social Democratic, Liberal and "Red" Tory's, but trying to pin on them negitive terms of Marxist socialism, aka: Communism, Scientfic socialism Marxist-Leninism and so on. These parties have nothing to very little in common with the negitive connnection which Right-Libertiarians and Neo-con's often try to lable the above mentioned.

I admit I lean to the right inside the NDP a little bit more then some people do. But Most NDPers only care about things like social justice, and social saft nets. Never in it's history has the NDP/CCF ever adopted Marxism. In fact it was founded by Chrsitain Socialists (thats what they were called in the day). Today I think the most radical thing you could find in the NDP would be a social-libertarian trend.

You would have to admit though the rhetoric coming out the NDP camp is anti-corporation, anti-American, pro union and pro taxation. They don't believe you have a right to keep most of your hard earned money and they pooh-pooh rich people all day long. They also pooh-pooh property rights, so there are reasons to believe the NDP camp will eventually take us down the road to some socialist utopia if they were allowed to. Were just not going to let them....
 
tracy
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by tracyQuote: Originally Posted by JayQuote: Originally Posted by tracyQuote: Originally Posted by LifestreamWhat's the problem with mixed healthcare? There are some private schools, why not "some" private clinics/hospitals?
Perhaps we have a false dilemma on our hands here?Look at the UK system and that would be my answer.
Private hospitals/clinics will only take the easy, money making surgeries. They get to keep the profits that would normally be reinvested in care. They will leave public facilities with everything unprofitable resulting in even less funding for public healthcare.Couldn't we solve that issue by having the government subsidize personal insurance payments? IE if you meet a certain criteria the government picks up a portion of your insurance payment?Would that result in anything different? I don't see how.It would be very difficult for hospitals and such to weed out the easy money.......

Quote has been trimmed
The easy money comment wasn't refering to the type of insurance the patient has,I was refering to the care the hospital will give. They will most likely only offer surgeries that are simple like knee replacements, laparascopic procedures, etc. and services to mainly healthy people like low risk birthing because they can charge a good amount of money for those services and those patients don't stay in the hospital long. A hospital is perfectly within its rights to not offer all services. The money losing, but often life saving, treatments will fall to the public system. Profits driving care and research is only good for you if you have a profitable health problem.

I work in a specialty that will always be a money losing one. It isn't a coincidence that the biggest NICUs are usually at not for profit facilities down here. The private hospitals wouldn't want to waste money on it. Most of our babies would be dead if it came down to money. I don't think a for profit hospital would kill off premies or anything, they just wouldn't offer NICU services in the first place or if they did it would be small or only in conjuction with a fertility practice (cause they make a lot of money there). Our unit is more than 60 beds (we've had as many as 86 babies while I've worked here), a coworker just went to a hospital in Newport Beach and their unit it tiny. She gets paid more at this private hospital, but she says she doesn't know why they even bother saying they have a nicu because it's so small she spends all her time floating to other units. This same hospital won't take medical patients at all. We tried to transport a baby there because the parents lived there, didn't have a car and it was taking them a ridiculous amount of time to get to our hospital, but nope. She's a medical baby. That type of thing turns me off of the private system being involved in healthcare and I'm proud to work in a unit that takes EVERY baby that needs care. I would prefer everyone was able to go into any hospital they want. I think that's especially important in Canada where most people don't live near to more than one hospital.
 
Jay
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy

The easy money comment wasn't refering to the type of insurance the patient has,I was refering to the care the hospital will give. They will most likely only offer surgeries that are simple like knee replacements, laparascopic procedures, etc. and services to mainly healthy people like low risk birthing because they can charge a good amount of money for those services and those patients don't stay in the hospital long. A hospital is perfectly within its rights to not offer all services. The money losing, but often life saving, treatments will fall to the public system. Profits driving care and research is only good for you if you have a profitable health problem.

See, I look at those things as matters of legislation and logistics. Not every hospital will be able to offer everything, and some will. That's up to the Directors and the Minister of Health in that province.
 
FiveParadox
#41
There are many people, not just members and supporters of the New Democratic Party of Canada, who believe that the rights to occupy property should be inherent to the individual, but the rights to develop that property should be held by the Queen in right of Canada this is not something exclusive to our friends in the NDP.

I would oppose amending our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to refer to the ownership of property as a "right" because let's be frank, it isn't. There are certain things that could cause someone to cease holding their land. For example, if they are unable to meet the financial obligations in relation to the retention of that land.

As for the interpretation of socialism in this thread, I must disagree with some of the "qualities" put forth here; for example, socialism has nothing to do with anti-Americanism. Moreover, to assert that unions are some inherent kind of evil would be incorrect, in my opinion. The New Democratic Party of Canada has never expressed an interest in breaking off ties with the United States rather, as have each and every other party represented in the House of Commons, they have advocated for a strong and friendly relationship.
 
tracy
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by tracy

The easy money comment wasn't refering to the type of insurance the patient has,I was refering to the care the hospital will give. They will most likely only offer surgeries that are simple like knee replacements, laparascopic procedures, etc. and services to mainly healthy people like low risk birthing because they can charge a good amount of money for those services and those patients don't stay in the hospital long. A hospital is perfectly within its rights to not offer all services. The money losing, but often life saving, treatments will fall to the public system. Profits driving care and research is only good for you if you have a profitable health problem.

See, I look at those things as matters of legislation and logistics. Not every hospital will be able to offer everything, and some will. That's up to the Directors and the Minister of Health in that province.

I don't expect every hospital to offer every service. That isn't the case now. I just think the private system siphoning off all the money making cases while leaving all the money losing cases to the public system will be detrimental to the public system. Their shareholders will get money at the end of the year that could have gone back into patient care to make up for the money losing cases. That leaves the public system even more underfunded. It isn't good for patients in the long run. Some people are ok with that, I'm not. I can not see anyone who works where I work thinking it's ok to underfund us because our babies aren't profit machines. Some things aren't all about profit, and they shouldn't be IMO. My favorite baby spent over 7 months in the hospital, had several surgeries and will require a lot of follow up care. She's a Medi-Cal baby. We easily spent over a million on her. And she's worth ever penny. I mean come on! Look at that face! I don't have any kids of my own, but I'm very happy to be her "auntie" Tracy.
Attached Images
cal88npt_846.jpg (6.1 KB, 257 views)
 
Jay
#43
Well "auntie" Tracy....you must be getting desperate. You're starting to use pictures of babies to win this debate!!

I'm just kidding. Very cute baby, and she is worth a million, but I don't see how certain hospitals will be able to do this. What if we removed all medical services outside of the public domain...then there would be no way of doing what you're suggesting would happen. Government involvement in the industry would be to regulate it, help with logistics and subsidize "poor" people's insurance bills. I would also expect with the serious decrease in government involvement in the industry, there might be money left over to buy MRI machines and other expensive equipment. This would help keep insurance premiums down.
 
tracy
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Well "auntie" Tracy....you must be getting desperate. You're starting to use pictures of babies to win this debate!!

I'm just kidding. Very cute baby, and she is worth a million, but I don't see how certain hospitals will be able to do this. What if we removed all medical services outside of the public domain...then there would be no way of doing what you're suggesting would happen. Government involvement in the industry would be to regulate it, help with logistics and subsidize "poor" people's insurance bills. I would also expect with the serious decrease in government involvement in the industry, there might be money left over to buy MRI machines and other expensive equipment. This would help keep insurance premiums down.

She is a cutie eh! I just got that picture yesterday. She's even cuter in person with her little baby glasses and big brown eyes and pudgy cheeks... She has quite an attitude sometimes though.... I love my baby, but she can be a handful!

The problem I have with your idea is I just don't think it's realistic. For profit companies exist to make profits. Why would they voluntarily choose to do things that will lose them money? Even if the government forces them to offer those services, they would likely only offer the bare minimum. I've already pointed out that our hospital is only supposed to take 60 some babies and we've taken as many as 86 in my time there. Those other 26 babies would be out of luck if the government was the only thing making us take the bare minimum of patients.

Also, you're assuming that private companies will be more efficient than the government. The most efficient insurer here is Medi-Cal. They spend the least amount of their money on "administration" and the most on patients. Single payer systems spend less on administration in general, which is why Canada spends less on those things than the US where we have all this choice in medical plans. Also, even if they were more efficient, which they aren't, those private companies would have to give a good portion of their money to their investors. That money isn't going into more MRIs.

I can understand why certain people would prefer a private system. I'm young, make decent money and like to have lots of choice. I can get that in the US private system, and despite whining about my high deductible, I'm pretty happy with my plan. If you are reasonably well off financially, you'd probably also do very well in a private system. I just also see the people who would not do well, and I can't justify the harm that would come to them if we didn't have a strong public healthcare system. Even in the US, the public system isn't going to be thrown away any time soon. They realize it's important too.
 
tracy
#45
I should add, even notforprofit hospitals are basically run the same way as forprofit hospitals when it comes to trying to save money by decreasing waste, streamlining care, etc. The difference at the end of the year is that our left over money goes back into patient care, not to pay shareholders.
 
Jay
#46
I understand, and I appreciate this conversation. Talking to some people about this issue (In Canada) and taking the stance I do, people will make you out to be a monster.

I don't want people to suffer anymore than the next guy, but I include in the definition of suffer to be a person with a cash filled pocket not being able to get the services they need rendered because of waiting lists, under funded systems, mismanaged situations and political rhetoric like "no two-tier healthcare". I also don't think it is legal to tell someone, if you want that service you have to leave the country (this is extra money forced out of the pockets of people because the government can't provide the service.) I think this is the essence of the recent Supreme Court ruling coming out of Quebec.

There has to be something better, and I think we are on the cusp of seeing a different system in Canada, and I hope and pray it is successful.
 
tracy
#47
I don't think you're a monster at all. I can't imagine meeting an American who would want a Canadian style system, and it's not because they're monsters, it's because they prefer their system. Don't go thinking there aren't waitlists here though too. I have another week to go before my appointment with the surgeon.

I see the same problems with health care in Canada that you do. I just see different solutions. I see how private involvement will make things worse overall, not better. Alberta's recent success in reducing wait times for orthopedic surgeries shows one way the public system can really improve. I would hope other provinces will follow their lead and implement many other common sense measures to improve health care in Canada. There are no measures the public system can't implement if they want to....

Maybe then I'd consider moving back to Canada....

If my dog is willing of course.
 
Jay
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy

I Alberta's recent success in reducing wait times for orthopedic surgeries shows one way the public system can really improve.

Yes I agree. I have a glimmer of hope this may be the resolve people are looking for. It strikes me as odd it took 50 years to discover this formula (from what I hear it is based on a business model and isn't a new idea). Let's hope for the best.
 
tracy
#49
Well, I don't know if they were working on the problem for 50 years, but I agree with you. There are a lot of things I've seen since coming to the US that I also think Canada could benefit from doing. Unfortunately, especially when it comes to Canada and the US, egos seem to get in the way of progress. I've seen this between different hospitals too. No one wants to admit they could learn something from the other guy.
 
the caracal kid
#50
Jay,

be very careful of not missing the hidden ways medical services can offer different levels of service depending on the profit margins.

I have a few friends in the cosmetic surgury business, and they have told me some rather glaring differences in treatement given in public hospitals depending on if the person is paying for surgury or is being covered by public healthcare.

Now i agree there is room for a private element to healthcare, but it needs to be run in such a way that it does not compete directly with the public system nor does it benefit from any public monies.
 

Similar Threads

10
220
The benefits of socialism.
by Walter | Jan 24th, 2010
419
Socialism Is the Only Way
by darkbeaver | Jan 31st, 2008
32
Being Intellectual
by china | Jul 9th, 2007
no new posts