Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!psivax.UUCP!seamus
From: seamus@psivax.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <12237852588.41.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 12:52:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: RED.12237852588.41.MCGREW
Posted: Wed Sep 10 12:52:02 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Sep-86 07:29:53 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: ll-xn!scubed!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!seamus@caip
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 76
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


In regard to socialized medicine:

James B. VanBokkelen wrote:
>>...what is so evil about socialized medicine?

Keith replied:
>Is it fair to doctors to have only one employer?  Shouldn't doctors
>be free to make arrangements with patients without government
>approval?

Keith makes the erroneous assumption that under a system of socialized
medicine all private practices would cease to exist.  This is not true
of socialized medicine in England where both public health doctors and
private doctors can be found.

(Keith again:)
>If government pays for something:
>
>1) The price skyrockets.
>   Government really has no control.  Doctors say 'it costs this 
>   much' what are they going to do?

This is an unjustified and unsupported defeatist attitude.  Here in
the United States our medical costs are higher than in England with
socialized medicine.  Why should government have no control?
Government can set maximum prices for common procedures the same way
that Health Insurance carriers here in the United States do now.
Don't even bother to reply that there will be much waste and fraud
because that same waste and fraud exists in the United States today
under our present system.

(more Keith)
>2) Competitors (if allowed at all) go out of business.
>   How can they compete against someone offering 'free' service?

Wrong. For evidence I again use the British example.  Private doctors
are free to practice medicine in England and they make a good living
at it.

(more Keith)
>3) The level of service goes down.

>From personal experience I disagree, in fact I have found the
opposite to be true.  If you wish to try to argue the issue please
provide some evidence (an objective comparative study of both systems
would be nice) rather than another anecdote.

(more Keith)
>4) The level of convenience goes down.

Completely false.  It is more convenient to walk into a hospital or
clinic and say 'I need help' than to use a system where billing has
proven to be a tremendous hassle.

(more Keith)
>5) Trivial usage goes up. ... It costs more to everyone in the long
>run of course,...

I don't accept this.  If people were more inclined to see doctors then
many problems could be corrected at an early stage before
complications set in.  Many expensive cures for serious problems could
be avoided.  We might in fact see costs decline.

What Keith has not even considered is the overall economic benefit
from a more healthy population.  (I do not think Keith will argue that
if medical care is more readily available then the general level of
health would improve.)  This economic benefit would be a benefit to
everyone, even those who do not personally use public health doctors.
...But...this would imply that socialized medicine is a "PUBLIC (or
collective) GOOD" and Keith has said many times that "PUBLIC GOODS"
don't exist.  So I guess one of us must be mistaken.

-seamus

-------