Originally Posted by Mallory

No agenda for me. I used the term socialised medicine, because I was not specifically referring to the NHS - it was a universal term.

My brother had a blood clot after long distance travel, coming into the UK from SA. We then found out a 1st cousin and her child both had a clotting disorder. My brother then had another serious clot - the NHS never tested him for the common clotting disorder. He was in very serious condition the 2nd time.

I had an operation in the USA, and the test was done for the clotting problem before my op.

It can be life-saving to not scrimp on tests. Would you rather pay a portion of the test, or not get it, and end up dead?

Originally Posted by Big D

I went to the dentist for first time last week - $450 - now i know its been a while but it was only a poke around and a spit and polish!

Originally Posted by fatbrit

In the interests of fairness (well, for a laugh, anyway), Trace, I went to Conservpedia and type "socialized" in the search box. On the first page, there's a link to Clinton, which states:

"Clinton was unable to "reform" health-care in the United States with a socialized health-care plan. It was a tough sell in the wake of the collapse of Soviet Bloc only a few years earlier. His approach consisted of appointing a planning committee with secret members to reshape this important sector of the economy. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons successfully sued to force disclosure of the committee financing, expenses and membership. The program ultimately became so unpopular after two years the Democratically controlled Congress shielded its members records by never bringing it to floor for a vote."

There's a link on this entry for socialized that brings us to their Wiki page entitled socialism, containing the following gems:

"Socialism is an economic and political ideology based on public ownership of the means of production"

"many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist in name, such as the Soviet Union"

"Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accummulating[SIC!] income."

"Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Originally Posted by Tracym

Well we might get further into politics than I have the knowledge to ingtelligantly converse.

I will first say - lol, yikes conservapedia.

I guess there is one true point - USSR = united soviet SOCIALIST repulic - if they're talking about names.

Originally Posted by Tracym

I didn't think we were discussing "pure" socialism - just the socialization (or other term?) of the medical system.

I do still remember a very interesting book by Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged, regarding the consequences of complete/pure socialism (or more correctly communism maybe?).

Extreme's at either end are probably not good I'd guess.

Originally Posted by fatbrit

They're not talking names, they're talking labeling!

socialist = communist, dictatorship, oppressive, anti-American.

If you unquestioningly describe it as socialized health care, you are blindly accepting their verdict.




We're talking: "We, your oligarchy, make plenty of money of your health care needs and we don't wish to change it at all. Anybody who questions this or anything else will be told to shut the eff up or transported to Gitmo as an enemy combatant."

No system is perfect. The best systems evolve over time and are freely discussed and criticized to allow these changes to take place.

Originally Posted by Tracym

Well again - if you don't like the name - socialized medicine - what do you propose to call it?

Not being argumentative, I mean the question seriously.

Originally Posted by Tracym

Well again - if you don't like the name - socialized medicine - what do you propose to call it?

Not being argumentative, I mean the question seriously.

Originally Posted by fatbrit

Universal health care will do just fine.

Originally Posted by Tracym

For ex. Canada does not allow other options, so is by definition socialized, not universal. Presuming that we are agreeing that wiki's definitions are correct.

Originally Posted by snowbunny

Canadian health care workers are NOT employees of the government, federal or provincial.

I guess a fairer question would be:

* is Medicare socialised medicine, or a single-payer/insurer system?

Originally Posted by Tracym

But according to the definition - they are not the same.

For ex. Canada does not allow other options, so is by definition socialized, not universal. Presuming that we are agreeing that wiki's definitions are correct.

Who knows, but to me personally (not being negative, just seeming to take it literally) if the government controls it all, and hires everyone, etc. it would seem like socialized is correct for Canada for example.

Well, I guess it doesn't matter really what you call it, it's how people view it and what they want to have.

Thanks for the info anyway.

Originally Posted by Tracym

From what I read, Medicare would be single-payer.

VA would be socialised.

Originally Posted by fatbrit

I like to think that universal health care means that people get the medical help that they require rather than that which they can afford. Seems pretty uncomplicated to me!

I'm pretty sure that if UHC was to arrive between these two shining seas, there would be a very large privately run part to it, as well.

I don't mind the term socialized to describe a form of UHC except insofar as it has become a term to dismiss it in the US and maintain the (IMO frightening and stupid) status quo. Therefore, it's best avoided if we are to make progress.