fred smith wrote:Thanks for all the opinions on the debate. Now, back to Big John... Define the terms. Back to you . In your court. Respond please.
No, I am clearly the one who should be answered first. Just how long are you two philosophers going to waste fossil fuel generated electricity to continue this inanity?
fred smith wrote:...bear with me OR I might open up another subject, oh say, one that is close to both of our hearts... We don't want to go there, do we?
BigJohn wrote:fred smith wrote:So please Fred:can you give us any examples of a mainly private system which actually doesn't leave millions in the lurch as the US model does?
Are you sure that your public sector option is not leaving millions in the lurch as well? What are the waiting lists like? and what kind of rationing of health care exists?
Telling question though... the question of leaving millions in the lurch never explores whether we can afford to or not to leave them in the lurch. I understand that those proposing socialist policies actually believe that they are doing good. But in the long run... are they sustainable and what happens to the economic support that finances these? Socialism has failed everywhere in the world except... big exception perhaps Sweden. Why? Answer me that and I will answer your question about examples.
I deny that social democracies with largely public health care systems are leaving millions in the lurch. France? Canada? There are problems, but nowhere near as bad as the US.
As to your question: why has socialism largely failed? Because it is an inefficient economic system. It is based on government planning of the economy, but this is less efficient than the market for communicating information about goods and services needed where and when. It also has a negative effect on motivation to produce or work harder, than the more open ended rewards - and punishments - of capitalism.
But social democracy has not failed. Go to Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, yadda yadda.
Now: can you give us any examples of a non-public national health care system that - inevitable problems aside - takes pretty good care of the vast majority of its citizens?
I agree with BigJohn's definition. The difference between socialism and social democracy is that socialists want to assert complete control over the economy and provide all goods and services based on government needs assessments, while social democrats want to maintain the capitalist structure, allowing buyers and sellers to control the market, but these activities are tempered with regulations to protect consumers, worker safety, and the environment. Social democrats also collect taxes to provide basic services such as health care, police, fire, and emergency medical services, etc.
I consider myself a social democrat. I think that societies have proven through trial and error that total socialism and total capitalism don't work. Capitalism is by far the better choice, and without question the majority of the economy should be managed by private buyers and sellers. But at the same time, industry should be regulated to prevent worker abuse and environmental excesses, and the government should provide basic services to ensure a high standard of living for everybody.
Governments have proven they can manage health insurance better than the private sector. They're able to achieve economies of scale and offer health insurance at a lower cost. And in single payer systems, health care technology, pharmaceuticals, facilities, and medical workers can all remain private. Secondary private insurance is also generally available. As in virtually every other industry, a mix of public and private interests serve society best.