Skip to comments.Socialized Medicine: How would you argue against? (vanity)
Posted on 11/02/2008 1:15:52 PM PST by RangerM
We all know the potential horrors if Socialized Medicine were ever made a reality in this country, but to someone who only sees the good, and none of the bad, it is difficult for them to see the truth.
In my discussion with a liberal friend I was having difficulty describing a parallel. We all can provide stories of long wait times, and lack of care experienced in other countries, but the answer always seems to be, "America will do it better". My point is that when a person has no responsibility to bear the costs of healthcare, he will not consider costs when pursuing healthcare, and the system will ultimately either fail economically or be forced to resort to rationing.
I was trying to think of a parallel that a person could see every day, and not simply disregard.
The only thing I could think of would be the Food Stamp program. Specifically, I was trying to remember if I have EVER seen a person using Food Stamps (or the debit card that some use) AND using a coupon or other similar discount. I DO remember seeing someone using one of those store discount cards, but those don't require any real effort.
I see this as a parallel in that the person who could benefit most from using coupons fails to make an effort to do so, but I don't want to misrepresent based on my own observation.
Does the group have any insights?
Tell your friend to look at what the government has done to social security.
America will do it better? We don’t have socialized medicine, yet back in February when my mom had to go to the ER she had to wait about 15 hours for a doctor to see her, and even then they would not admit her into the hospital. 5 months later, she passed away due to complications from surgery and her kidneys completely failing thanks to Celebrex.
Dick Morris has a good argument for this. Tell them that Obama plans to cover millions of illegals and there won’t be enough doctors in the system to handle the influx thus affecting senior citizens who visit their doctors on a regular basis. There will be longer waiting times.
Signing up for a doctor’s appointment with the same person who issues your license plates is a really goofy idea. Rationing isn’t always fun either.
How bad is the DMV or the post office in your area?
“Do you want the same people who manage the (DMV/post office/Hurricane Katrina recovery/etc) running your health care?”
Ask him how well 'public schools' run in comparison to private schools. In general public schools are a mess and costing more money for very little positive results.
I explain socialized medicine as necessarily requiring rationing.
Reducing the price will increase the demand for services-simple economics.
Since there are only so many health care personnel hours available, rationing becomes necessary.
It exacerbates the situation even further if the British system is used which makes doctors employees of the state working on salary. Doctors work long hours, in part due to the fact they get paid pretty well for doing so. Working in a government bureaucracy would makes it less likely they would want to or even be allowed to considering government rules.
The US government takes in $130 in taxes for every $100 it gives back in services. With that kind of efficiency there is simply no way it will be anything but more expensive to get them involved.
I feel for your loss. I hope your family was able to find some solace by drawing closer together.
Is your mother’s ailment a common occurence with celebrex?
As for health-care, one thing is for certain, if the access to quality health-care was never at issue, more people would develop an entrepreneurial spirit. When you have a family, and do not have health-care, its frightening. Stepping out into the world of owning your business seems far more perilous without health-care. Something needs to be done to address it.
This will give you a good start:
ask very politely the following questions:
In a socialized medicine, where does innovation come from? Where will we turn to for new treatments, radical new surgeries, and research in the pharmaceutical industries? Are you willing to give up being the (a) leader in medical research?
Arguing against a lib on this, a few points using terms they would understand..
First, socialized healthcare would be a monopoly. We know that monopolies result in lower quality, higher prices, and poor treatment of employees. If arguing with a lib, say it is WalMart healthcare, if there where no competition with WalMart.
Second, this would allow the government to have access to all of your health data and share it with government agencies, your privacy from the government is out the window. If the government, for example, wanted to isolate out everyone with the flu, they can find you and take you away.
Third, who do you complain to if you aren’t happy with the service, payments, or want a second opinion? Giving the government all that power, there is no checks and balances, they are the say all end all. If they decide one week that coffee is bad for you, they can ban it and stop giving you medical coverage if you don’t give it up.
Fourth, the ‘pie’ is being divided up more and more, how much more can the government pie be divided up before we only get the crumbs?
My 2c because I’m originally from Vancouver, canada..it doesn’t work and will never work.
First, it’s NOT FREE. The Cdn taxpayers pay a monthly premium (in BC it’s $56 for a single person) and u get what u pay for. It’s not automatic that u see a doctor, and get surgery. That monthly premium is just a permission slip to see the doctor and the wait for any “specialist” goes for months.
If u DONT pay your monthly premium, the govt will send collections after u, ding your credit report and call the cops..even if u DONT want the option of paying that monthly payment. How’s that for freedom?
There are many accounts that I personally know of patients dying due to the long waits but the Cdn press subdues it because they dont want the population to know that the system has been broke for the past 40 years.
2nd: because the system is heavily unionized, the money goes not into the system but into union coffers: nurses, doctors, anesthesiologists UNIONS who go on strike like clockwork if they don;t get what they want. The result is 3rd world medical eqpmnt and lazy doctors/nurses who go on 4 month paid vacations at taxpayers expense.
There’s more but Im too lazy to type...
I understand where you are coming from on that, but many people don’t go to the DMV very often, so I’m not sure that would have the same impact.
My reasoning for the Food Stamp example is that almost everyone goes to the grocery store at least once, if not multiple times per week.
It would seem (to me) there is more opportunity to see it there, but I’m not sure if the comparison is the best.
Everyone thinks of what they will “gain”. But when anything is centrally planned, there MUST be a way to enforce the plan, OR cental planning is utterly useless.
This is why socialism soon needs secret police,,like in the early models (Nazi, Communist, etc,,)
And why there must be extensive surveillance and crusing of dissent in modern “soft” socialist countries, like England. People there are prosecuted for letters to the editor. They are prosecuted for not following the rules of NHS medicine.
Central planning = Central control,,, no dissent tolerated.
I have 4 ideas that may fix the healthcare issue, but keep capitalism philosophy. None have socialist philosophy whatsoever...well one kinda, itty bitty does, but not really at all. Some can be done through state levels and some through fed/state.
NONE have ever been mentioned on the national stage that I know of...
but none are pure-freebies per se...they are all incentivized ideas, or charity ideals
There is a limited amount of money to spend on health care.
In a free-market system, the individual can decide for himself how much he wants to pay and can structure his insurance however he wants to to minimize his risk. Rationing decisions will be made by the individual.
In a socialized system, the state decides how much to spend on each individual for health care. The individual has no control over how his coverage is structured, and rationing decisions will be made by the state.
Now, these rationing decisions are often matters of life and death. It may sound attractive, at first glance, to have to state pay for expensive life extending care, so the individual does not have to pay the bill. But, ultimately, the state will further the state interest, not the individual’s interest. So when it comes time to pay for that expensive and life extending treatment, if the individual is unlikely to be a net asset to society, or is likely to become a future burden, the state will act rationally and deny the care.
Nothing personal. Just business.
The other problem with any socialized system that ever existed or ever will exist is that it quickly devolves into a two-tier system, with politically connected insiders getting adequate care, and the mass of unconnected plebians getting substandard care. There is absolutely no reason to think that would be different in our system.
So, the individual has to ask himself, is he going to be one of the lucky few who benefits from adequate state-run care, or is he going to be one of the masses, who is shuffled into dirty state-run hospitals only to be denied the care he needs?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.