Posted on 06/03/2005 10:17:58 AM PDT by bagocookies
Now get off my back already!
It is important to distinguish between political systems and economic systems. If we live in a democratic system and people are inclined and free to vote their interests, it is reasonable to expect that there will be some social safety nets in place, but does that mean people will become lazy thieves?
On the other hand, Neo-liberal (capitalism) economic reforms were forced on Argentina and Chile at the point of a gun by totalitarian regimes. The result in both countries was hailed as a success by Friedman, the IMF, and other free marketeers even though unemployment the poverty level rose drastically in both cases.
Below is from a New York Times atricle:
When the economy collapsed here 18 months ago, the situation was so bad that the owners of many factories simply shut their doors and walked away, in most cases owing their employees months and months of back pay. Rather than accept that situation, workers - backed by neighborhood associations and left-wing groups enamored with the idea of "people's capitalism" - have sometimes been able to persuade bankruptcy courts to let them take over the company's assets.
"The only boss here now is the customer," said Pl·cido PeÒarieta, one of nine employees at the Chilavert Artes Gr·ficas cooperative, which prints art books and posters, calendars and concert programs. "We've learned to depend on ourselves and nobody else."
...But with the Argentine economy - especially companies that export goods - finally showing some signs of recovery, the original owners of some plants have resurfaced. That has led to legal struggles with workers and, in one recent case, even violence.
I don't know what you'd call that. The property was taken over, even though abandoned and the companies are run cooperatively so maybe its socialism or worse. But the people clearly were not thrown out of work and into poverty because they were somehow deficient in motivation to work. They function successfully in a competitive market.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned from both the Bradford Diaries and the experience in Argentina is that people function best when they have a stake in their own future and that neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism based on the Neo-liberal model provides that opportunity across the board.
Practice your socialism elsewhere. I've said what I had to say.
I am not a socialist, sir. Nor do I wholly ascribed to Neo-liberal economic policies, I am pragmatic and believe that the moral position takes into consideration the needs of all a nation's people. Not being a true believer I am free to look objectively at what works. I do not need to call people names or go off in a huff.
My concern is with the bottom line: the folks who get cancer who cannot afford it (most) and who don't have insurance.
To me, this is the basic problem with socialism. The bottom line is always before us, always tempting us towards the simple, brute force solution of law and coercion. And in the face of this, socialism always gives in. It never waits, it never stands on principle, it never takes into account subtler things like unintended consequences and opportunity costs -- things which in the long run might add up to a sum that exceeds the bottom line which seems so pressing at the moment. I think we'll be trading way too many possibilities and opportunities if we give in and go down the path of least resistance by socializing our healthcare.
"It never waits, it never stands on principle, it never takes into account subtler things like unintended consequences and opportunity costs -- things which in the long run might add up to a sum that exceeds the bottom line which seems so pressing at the moment. I think we'll be trading way too many possibilities and opportunities if we give in and go down the path of least resistance by socializing our healthcare."
Three thoughts on this:
(1) Waiting in this case means that a lot of people die, not in the long run but in the short run.
(2) I am not sure what possibilities and opportunities can present themselves in the future that justify permitting the deaths and horrible suffering of lots of innocent people right now. It strikes me that this is a singularly bad bargain.
(3) I simply do not consider public assistance of health insurance to be socialist. The British or Canadian medical system, where doctors are forced to work for the system - this is socialist. But American Medicare? This is not socialist to my eyes, no more than public education seems to me socialist.
I fully agree. The present system is corrupt, wasteful and manipulated by doctors, lawyers and politicians.
Why do I get the feeling...this is some MarxistSocialistDemocrat group?
Because it is. See the entry from David Horowitz's indispensible Discoverthenetwork.org under Pew Charitable Trust:
Like many leftwing foundations, PCT supports myriad groups that are virulently anti-corporate and anti-capitalist, while it simultaneously holds many millions of dollars worth of investments in major corporations. For instance, while PCT invests in Exxon-Mobil, it supports Greenpeace, the Ruckus Society, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Uproar, Public Citizen, Global Trade Watch, the Green Party, the Institute for Policy Studies, Global Exchange, Pressurepoint, and a host of other radical environmental groups that characterize Exxon-Mobil as an enemy of the environment. PCT is the largest funding source for the Tides Foundation, having given the latter nearly $109 million between 1990 and 2002.
Ah....I knew that!
No, it means continuing with the present system, which is expensive and inefficient but not deadly, for a while longer while we work towards a solution that meets the needs of the needy and that is consistent with our principles.
(2) I am not sure what possibilities and opportunities can present themselves in the future that justify permitting the deaths and horrible suffering of lots of innocent people right now.
Yeah well, none of us are "sure" about the future. The future is funny like that. And again, this is a problem with the argument for socialism generally. Socialism always presents us with some guaranteed solution *now*, weighed against some future solution that no one is sure of and that may not even have been imagined yet. But the fact that you're not sure of what the future might look like doesn't mean that standing on principle and working towards some better solution isn't the better route, even if that solution isn't a certainty and even if it means we may have to wait for it. Socialism never lets principle and discipline and the capacity to persevere stand in the way of its greed for the short-term solution. This is its classical flaw, I think. Socialism always has these simplistic, super-urgent first order reasons for scrapping everything poste haste, but then when it gets its way we find ourselves buried under a mountain a subtler effects that are ultimately worse than the original problem -- and in some cases they're not particularly subtle.
How about the death and suffering of lots of people in the future? What if a socialized system causes a misallocation resources that starves a potentially revolutionary area of medical research? What if a socialized system discourages talented people from going into the field of healthcare? What if a healthcare model exists that's better than any present or past system but just hasn't been thought of yet? If we go to a socialized system, all market-based solutions will be off the table forever.
The fact that the future is unknowable isn't a sufficient argument for socialism, though it is a common argument for it.
(3)...But American Medicare? This is not socialist to my eyes, no more than public education seems to me socialist.
How is public education not socialist? And why does the existence of some socialism justify more socialism? And how is public education not shot through with opportunity costs and unintended consequences?
I'll bet if the New Englanders back in the 17th century had known that their adoption of a socialist education system would lead to the pathetic modern system we have now, they would have thought twice about adopting it. If they had known that modern public schools would turn out to be little more than daycare centers in the inner cities and centers for teaching revisionist history in the suburbs, they would have kept things private. They would have left education up to the nuns. They would have traded their opportunity to have a few extra bible-literate citizens in their day for the opportunity to have millions of competently educated citizens in future generations.
But socialism is short sighted.
The US already has three systems that amount to universal health coverage: Medicare, Medicaid, and the requirement to see everyone with an emergency in an emergency room.
The bullet was bitten on Medicare, long ago.
Rolling Medicaid into Medicare, and the emergency room into Medicare, would not, I think, amount to a change in kind, just a change in record keeping which would simplify things and eliminate two whole branches of administration.
Rolling the Veteran's Administration Hospitals into it would elminate a fourth.
I look specifically at France, because France has high rates of research and medical discoveries, just like the US. One of the articles of faith in the anti-Medicare argument is that this stifles innovation. French health care science is very innovative, and invents many things, precisely because the DOCTORS and scientists remain independent in France. This is the same as it is in the US. On the other hand, doctors in the British and Canadian health systems are communized, controlled. That really is socialism. And the British and Canadians never invent anything as a result.
If the US wants to maintain its present very expensive and inefficient system of private health care paid for by public finance, that is fine. The French certainly will maintain their very expensive system but more rationalized and therefore less expensive of private health care paid for by public finance. Most post-haste arguments on these threads have been how France is going to be, and ought to be, forced by economic reality to abandon its health care model. I think that America is going to be forced by economic reality to adopt a new one, and I think that of all the models, the French is not only the best in terms of research and quality of care, but is also the one that most respects individual liberty of patients and doctors.
Further, I would say that the French system, like the US, is partially market based. Doctors are private. If their charges exceed Medicare, the patient must pay the difference. This has led to private insurance to cover the gap. It just does not seem socialist to me.
As to public schools, a thought occurs to me: were you educated in private school?
Don't forget the hundreds of thousands, shelved in Nursing Homes, on tranquilizers, which will be coming out of your taxes, next year.
But how 21st Century Americans love their illusions!
William Flax
Unfortunately you're right. We've already crossed the major barriers that would keep us from national healthcare. It would be very difficult to turn back at this point. It would require a consensus that doesn't exist and that would be extremely difficult to bring about. I think the writer of the original article is correct that some kind of national healthcare, formally recognized as such, is probably inevitable.
I just am not very happy about it.
Further, I would say that the French system, like the US, is partially market based. Doctors are private. If their charges exceed Medicare, the patient must pay the difference. This has led to private insurance to cover the gap. It just does not seem socialist to me.
Well, socialist is a tricky term to pin down. But once you're into the realm of public financing, you've crossed a boundary into something which has some of the properties of socialism. You've taken a decisive step towards the socialist end of the spectrum. That said, if we're going to dabble with socialism, the French system you describe sounds like a reasonable model.
As to public schools, a thought occurs to me: were you educated in private school?
Nope. I'm a product of the public education system.
"Nope. I'm a product of the public education system."
And if there were no public education system, did your family possess the means to pay the tuition to send you and all of your siblings to private school?
My family was middle middleclass but they would have been able to pay for private school. In fact, my younger sister went to private school. However, I do recognize that paying private tuition would be difficult for some families, and that for some percentage of families it would be impossible.
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.