tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post9175735194107995661..comments2024-03-27T20:51:11.303-04:00Comments on Accepting Ignorance: I Got My Ears CleanedAlrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-66475711534424355652008-08-08T13:24:00.000-04:002008-08-08T13:24:00.000-04:00I would personally use the private system and add ...I would personally use the private system and add charity for the hard cases. The instability of a socialized system seems to me to be more dangerous than the risk of the charity failing to find funds. <BR/><BR/>But, as I'm fond of noting, it's the nature of democracies that their citizens begin to think that they know how to run a country. This isn't based on actual aptitude.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-71498794602240087682008-08-08T13:04:00.000-04:002008-08-08T13:04:00.000-04:00I think it is in the economical interest of a coun...I think it is in the economical interest of a country to have a healthy work force. Disease costs more than prevention. Unproductive citizens pay less taxes. <BR/><BR/>However, if you run your heath system like a for-profit business, with health insurance and hospitals that are private businesses, then a company has an incentive to select only healthy people as subscribers or to penalize already sick ones. And believe me, when you learn you are sick, you probably don't want to worry about how you will be able to pay - or - God forbid - be forced to give up a better treatment because you can't afford it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Even if they accept you as a customer, they will tend to do as little as possible for you because treatment is expensive.<BR/><BR/>Now, let's assume you have socialized health care. Then you could run into other problems: not enough resources, government approved lists of drugs and diagnose/treatment procedures (I would prefer doctors to decide what drugs and treatments work best instead of bureaucrats). Even more, drug and medical technology producers are still private businesses and they tend to form an unholy alliance with the government ppl. who manage the heath care system.<BR/><BR/>In a socialized medicine system there people would be tempted to start paying bribes to doctors for preferential treatment (faster access, more expensive treatments, etc)<BR/><BR/>If the government starts to give ratings to hospitals&doctors based on their treatment success rates, then they will tend to avoid difficult cases so as not to blemish their record. Thus you cannot base your government money allocation solely on success rate.<BR/><BR/>Even if a country like USA would want to socialize medicine, it wold be very very difficult given that hospitals are privately owned and doctors, after investing a lot of years (and money) in their specialization, expect to get paid back handsomely - which is not the case in a socialized medicine country where a doctor gets a decent wage, like a teacher or other govt. employee.<BR/><BR/>Even if we try to demonetize health, it still will still be dependent upon money as hospitals, equipment and hiring doctors and nurses costs money.<BR/><BR/>My solution - I don't have one. But I don't want to be discriminated based on my health risks. It's a terrible gamble. If everyone is not paying the same and we start asking people to pay depending on their condition, we might have a class of medical destitutes. And that is a tragedy.H.Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00914802280298201086noreply@blogger.com