Socialism is Overrated
December 16th 2007 06:25
When the principle argument against healthcare for all is 'socialism is evil' you begin to wonder, why is it evil? Apparently there was this whole communism thing with the Russians back during when a calculator was the size of my bedroom and operated on the principles of vacum cleaners. Well good, but so what?
Are we to say that socialising healthcare is the first step towards communism? Maybe so, in a sense if healthcare is socialised doctors and nurses will be forced to work where their employer (the government) wants them to. Then again, even if they are working for a private insurer things won't be changing much, in fact it would be the same. If there is no work available one has to move. There is very little difference if it's the government or a private enterprise telling the doctor or nurse that there is no work available.
Then there's the whole matter of being oppressed that the government is forcing healthcare upon the unsuspecting public and worse yet, taxing them for it! I'm sure everyone can agree on one thing, that irrespective of income or social status everyone is entitled to the same quality of healthcare. This is where one has to ask, can a private enterprise driven by capitalism possibly have the compassion and heart to provide the same level of service to two people paying different amounts of money?
What truly is incompassionate is forcing people to be at the mercy of these enterprises and even forcing these enterprises to provide the same level of service irrespective of the customers payment. What we have is a paradox through and through, you can't force the enterprise to treat all its customers in the same manner irrespective of how much they pay and you can't subject people to be at the mercy of said enterprise. At the end of the day applying free market theory to private healthcare does not yield 'he who provides the best healthcare is most successful' but instead it's more in the line of 'who can provide the least healthcare will be the most successful'.
This is the driving point of it all, it's socialism, sure, but socialism is not an inherintly bad thing. Of course you can't make everything socialist and you certainly can't make everything capitalist. In times of need who are we to put our trust in if not the government? The government is not an enemy of the state, their is nothing wrong with the government providing the people of the country with resources. Of course taking it to extremes and being satisfied with government is plainly wrong, but being afraid of the government to provide such a fundamental right as healthcare while trusting it with such grave matters as war is plain irresponsible.
Are we to say that socialising healthcare is the first step towards communism? Maybe so, in a sense if healthcare is socialised doctors and nurses will be forced to work where their employer (the government) wants them to. Then again, even if they are working for a private insurer things won't be changing much, in fact it would be the same. If there is no work available one has to move. There is very little difference if it's the government or a private enterprise telling the doctor or nurse that there is no work available.
Then there's the whole matter of being oppressed that the government is forcing healthcare upon the unsuspecting public and worse yet, taxing them for it! I'm sure everyone can agree on one thing, that irrespective of income or social status everyone is entitled to the same quality of healthcare. This is where one has to ask, can a private enterprise driven by capitalism possibly have the compassion and heart to provide the same level of service to two people paying different amounts of money?
What truly is incompassionate is forcing people to be at the mercy of these enterprises and even forcing these enterprises to provide the same level of service irrespective of the customers payment. What we have is a paradox through and through, you can't force the enterprise to treat all its customers in the same manner irrespective of how much they pay and you can't subject people to be at the mercy of said enterprise. At the end of the day applying free market theory to private healthcare does not yield 'he who provides the best healthcare is most successful' but instead it's more in the line of 'who can provide the least healthcare will be the most successful'.
This is the driving point of it all, it's socialism, sure, but socialism is not an inherintly bad thing. Of course you can't make everything socialist and you certainly can't make everything capitalist. In times of need who are we to put our trust in if not the government? The government is not an enemy of the state, their is nothing wrong with the government providing the people of the country with resources. Of course taking it to extremes and being satisfied with government is plainly wrong, but being afraid of the government to provide such a fundamental right as healthcare while trusting it with such grave matters as war is plain irresponsible.
| 64 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
When we choose doctors on the free market, the dynamics are basically this: Competition and an open free market for doctor services and the lure of profits inspire them to becomes better doctors. Who is going to pay for the healthcare for all system and lastly, who will manage it?
Big government is not streamlined or flexible enough to be truly responsive to the needs of the people. Maybe some rethinking of the entire system is called for; but perhaps a combination of a free market and state sponsored healthcare approach is workable. Oh, isn't that what we have now??
Communism is a failed paradigm, it doesn't inspire anyone to raise up and to take the lead, it promotes mediocrity and I for one, don't want to be treated by a doctor who finished med school at the bottom of his class.
The other government issues; we can haggle over them later.
Raven
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
We have private insurers here in Australia however if you take any given private hospital you'll probably find it's more than likely not going to perform at the same level as a public hospital unless of course you're paying the big bucks (somemthing in the line of ten thousand a year or so).
I don't think the free market can do a very good job when it comes to healthcare. The principle problem is economics. If you're paying $6000 a year on healthcare, and lets say you've been with an insurer for three years, then suddenly it turns out you need an operation costing in at $100,000 do you really think the insurer will be willing to pay? Thats a massive net loss and even though you are supposedly covered (and you should be on $6000 a year) they will find some sort of absurd loophole to deny you coverage, failing that they may bitterly give you the money they owe you. You can't blame them, they're competing with other similar insurers which will do the samething, ultimately the most successful company is not the one that provides the best quality care, it's the one that denies the most care
The problem with providing national healthcare may be because the government is not flexible enough, however I don't buy into the government being simply incapable of handling national healthcare. If the government can supposedly handle a war that costs more than severel years of healthcare then it certainly can, as a rule of thumb, be able to handle something as basic as healthcare.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Of course, in Canada, the system is so overloaded that it's tough to get care, sometimes.
I suppose you're suggesting that every individual is responsible for organizing their own health insurance?
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thus endth the lesson.