Socialist Medicine

[LuckyNumber23]

Hypothesis: A capitalist healthcare system (or one that is more free than others) will provide better goods and services than monopolistic ones. Better goods and services will increase the life expectancy of the people living in that country.The US has, compared to other countries, a relative free system of healthcare. Thus, it should rank high on the table, compared to socialist countries.Lets have a look at the numbers:

 

1) Monaco (Socialist Europe)

 

2) Japan (No idea, but I guess Socialist as well)3) Andorra (Socialist Europe)6) Australia (Socialist)9) Canada (Socialist)

 

11) Switzerland (Socialist)12) Spain (Socialist)17) Norway (Socialist)19) Germany (Socialist)20) UK (LOL)...37 US (Capitalist)You can find the list at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country#List_by_the_CIA_.282012.29The general life expectancy of US citizens is about 80. In Sweden, one of the top 10 countries it is 83 years. Given the distribution of life expectancy you can deduct that the Swedish health system is overall much more effective than it's US counterpart.Hypothesis disproven.

[LovePrevails]

Are you fucking kidding me?

 

You know how many barriers to entry there are into the medical profession in the US?

 

All these healthcare systems are systems of illness not systems of health

the only thing that is remunerated is sickness and treating sickness

there is no monetization of preventing ill health or maintaining good healthy

only reaction after the fact

 

that's why the rates of all chronic illnesses have gone up to no end over the last century

 

the more government involvement in healthcare which is actually sickcare and createslarge incentives to keep people sick and treat them forever

the more people will be sick and be treated. it's a ridiculous system

 

http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

[Wuzzums]

I'm Romanian and a med student. The system here is socialist as well... on paper. What you don't see is the whole bribe culture embedded deeply in the system which has free market traits (like for example the "bribe" cost for an operation here is 10% of the legal costs in places like US or Canada). So I wouldn't be so fast to divvy up a medical system into capitalist/socialist. The politics are far too complex and covert to be seen from an outside view. There are places for example that refuse to treat individuals that are older than a certain age, or in the US where they refuse to treat you if you don't have any insurance.

 

Another factor that needs to be taken in account is how much of the life expectancy is due to medical services. For instance, knowing that the medical system is abysmal, citizens will take better care of their health which in turn will lead to a higher life expectancy. In contrast to people that can afford to be reckless because they have insurance on everything.

 

Or maybe some medical systems put a larger emphasis on preventive medicine, which will lower the incidence of life threatening diseases and in turn raise life expectancy.

[LuckyNumber23]

that's why the rates of all chronic illnesses have gone up to no end over the last century

 

 

Chronical illnesses have gone up because in the past people died, before they could develop them. A further reason is that a lot more babies survived that would have died in previous times without the medical care that is available now or in the near past.

the more government involvement in healthcare which is actually sickcare and createslarge incentives to keep people sick and treat them forever

 

Can you back up your claim? With statistics preferably.

You know how many barriers to entry there are into the medical profession in the US?

 

These barriers exist in other countries as well. This cannot be the difference.

Another factor that needs to be taken in account is how much of the life expectancy is due to medical services. For instance, knowing that the medical system is abysmal, citizens will take better care of their health which in turn will lead to a higher life expectancy.

 

This is a good point. However, you can compare medical services by looking at death rates of newborns. An abysmal health system correlates with a high rate of death at birth.

there is no monetization of preventing ill health or maintaining good healthy

only reaction after the fact

 

 

Insurance companies are interested in making money. Thus, they can exclude from entering a contract with them by introducing clauses like preexisting conditions. These may include: hay fever, high blood pressure, cander and what have you.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

I'm still looking for a longer video that Stef did on the same subject, but this one gets right down to the jist of things:

 

 

And for the record, you can't be refused healthcare here in the US due to lack of insurance. Especially in hospitals, who are required by the state to keep an amount of money on hand called "charity care" for people who make money below the poverty line (although I'm not sure what's going to change due to Obamacare).

 

I did this in 2011. I had no health insurance so instead I just went to the emergency room and racked up $3000 in hospital bills, which the hospital entirely waived after I showed them a copy of my paycheck.

 

-Dylan

[Andrew79]

Hypothesis: A capitalist healthcare system (or one that is more free than others) will provide better goods and services than monopolistic ones. Better goods and services will increase the life expectancy of the people living in that country.

 

Poor hypothesis.

 

If you want to see if capitalism provides better goods and services than socialism, you need to measure those goods and services.

 

You're not even measuring the result of them.

 

You're measuring something that those goods and services are only one factor in, ignoring major factors such as diet, genetics, exercise, etc.

 

And you're only using one reference for capitalism, the US, where 60%+ of healthcare is actually provided through the government.

 

You want to prove socialism beats capitalism, you'll have to do a far better job than this blatant misrepresentation. Or just read Hoppe's "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism", he kills the issue dead.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I can live slightly longer by stealing???

 

YEY!

[LuckyNumber23]

I did this in 2011. I had no health insurance so instead I just went to the emergency room and racked up $3000 in hospital bills, which the hospital entirely waived after I showed them a copy of my paycheck.

 

 

First of all, sorry to read that. To misquote Friedman: There is no such thing as waiving. The bill did not disappear. Rather, other patients with insurance had to pay for it by higher premiums.

If you want to see if capitalism provides better goods and services than socialism, you need to measure those goods and services.

 

I wrote about a healthcare that Austrians call Socialist. I used that term and showed, that a relative free system does not necessarily bring better results compared to one that is more market oriented when it comes to healthcare.Life expectancy is the sum total of a healthcare system. To make it more clear, imagine three companies making cars.

Company A makes cars that last for 10 000 miles. Company B makes cars that last for 11 000 miles. Company C makes cars that last 12 000 miles. Which company makes the best cars in average?

You want to prove socialism beats capitalism, you'll have to do a far better job than this blatant misrepresentation. Or just read Hoppe's "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism", he kills the issue dead.

 

One golden point for anyone who discovers a strawman. I read all of Hoppe's books, even his thesis.

Re: the video. There are large areas of the world where doctors practice without supervision. The name for them is Medicine Men. The state created the modern health care system. As a side effect, life expectancy became much longer, due to investments in research and in better treatments. During the time the system was unregulated it was around 50 years, while it reached 70 years around 1950.http://www.prb.org/images11/us_life_expectancy.gifIf Long's thesis was true, you would see a decline from the time that government got involved in healthcare. This is evidently not true.

[Andrew79]

I wrote about a healthcare that Austrians call Socialist. I used that term and showed, that a relative free system does not necessarily bring better results compared to one that is more market oriented when it comes to healthcare.

Life expectancy is the sum total of a healthcare system.

 

 

I can only repeat what I said: healthcare is only one factor in life expectancy.

 

For example the Japanese and American diets are not particularly similar so to just ignore that is nothing short of fraudulent.

 

And, again, you're not looking at the actual service provided, you're just cherry picking the data to try to prove the impossible.

[LuckyNumber23]

For example the Japanese and American diets are not particularly similar so to just ignore that is nothing short of fraudulent.

 

 

Let's remove Japan then. Does not change much in the overall results. However, let's say that diet plays a much larger role than healthcare for the sake of the argument. Then you have the same point, namely that people in 'Socialist' countries live longer than Murricans due to a better diet.

And, again, you're not looking at the actual service provided, you're just cherry picking the data to try to prove the impossible.

 

 

The sum total of all services interests me. You can draw conclusions from them. This is what statistics is about.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I can only repeat what I said: healthcare is only one factor in life expectancy.

 

For example the Japanese and American diets are not particularly similar so to just ignore that is nothing short of fraudulent.

 

And, again, you're not looking at the actual service provided, you're just cherry picking the data to try to prove the impossible.

Truth or logic is not a primary concern to socialists. They want to coral you into a consequentialist debate were they can cherry-pick and distort information to fit their ideology and they appeal directly to a population that won't think about it too much. Contrary information will not slow them down so there's little point in arguing from consequences. A person with the much weaker case can appear to have the stronger if they're willing to distort and lie.

[Andrew79]

Then you have the same point, namely that people in 'Socialist' countries live longer than Murricans due to a better diet.

 No, you do not have the same point. The Japanese diet (plenty of fish) has nothing to do with socialism and every to do with geography."Murricans" - fantastic, a bit of socialism 101: whenever possible mock and smear your opponents . Personally, I've travelled all over the world and without a shadow of doubt the good people of the USA have been the kindest and most friendly I've come across.It must be terrible to hate such a great country simply on the basis that it's success exposed socialist ideology as worthless nonsense. 

The sum total of all services interests me. You can draw conclusions from them. This is what statistics is about.

 I run a business that conducts 10-15 experiments per week with sample sizes ranging from a few hundred to a few million, so I know all about statistics and the art of bullshitting.And trying to pull very specific conclusions from very general data is pure bullshit (do you even know if you've got the causation the right way round?).

Truth or logic is not a primary concern to socialists.

I know, and I know I shouldn't waste my time.But seeing how smug, righteous, and arrogant they are, despite their ideology being responsible for poverty, genocide, and mass starvation always gets a rise out of me.

[dsayers]

Life expectancy is a very complex number. To refer to it as if its an indication of level of coercion in a "health care system" is naive. It ignores factors such as living in one system and seeking care in another. You have called the US a capitalist health care when it's been coercive for over half a century and in the last decade, has taken direct steps towards nationalized socialism (nazism).

 

If any system was truly capitalist, competition and consequences would make it self-correcting, efficient, and conducive to innovation.

[cab21]

Hypothesis: A capitalist healthcare system (or one that is more free than others) will provide better goods and services than monopolistic ones. Better goods and services will increase the life expectancy of the people living in that country.

 

 

 

how did you come up with this hypothesis?

[LuckyNumber23]

It must be terrible to hate such a great country simply on the basis that it's success exposed socialist ideology as worthless nonsense.

 

 

You seem to know me really well.

 

I run a business that conducts 10-15 experiments per week with sample sizes ranging from a few hundred to a few million, so I know all about statistics and the art of bullshitting.

 

 

Good. Disprove me then. I have a maths degree.

 

Contrary information will not slow them down so there's little point in arguing from consequences. A person with the much weaker case can appear to have the stronger if they're willing to distort and lie.

 

Present your strong case. I am still waiting. So far you could only insult.

But seeing how smug, righteous, and arrogant they are, despite their ideology being responsible for poverty, genocide, and mass starvation always gets a rise out of me.

 

I will take that as a compliment.

"Murricans" - fantastic, a bit of socialism 101: whenever possible mock and smear your opponents

 

 

Insults do not replace an argument. Can you point out where I smeared Americans?

A tip from doge: Make arguments but don't take refuge in ad homs or insults. They kind of reveal your lack of intelligence.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Present your strong case. I am still waiting. So far you could only insult.

 

Strong case for what?

You just demonstrated what I'm arguing. You want to corral people into arguing a consequentialist case because you know statistics can be cherry-picked and distorted. I could throw back all sorts of things like the stark differences between socialist eastern bloc and more capitalist western bloc or that much if not most of the medicine and tech used by socialists comes from "capitalist" America or ask what you think about the life-expectancy of the hundreds of millions killed in socialist programs like war or any number of things but it would go exactly nowhere. Even if I could convince you to change your mind I would not want to for those reasons.

The hypothesis you put forward is that a healthcare system based on non-violence and free trade will provide better goods and services than one based on violence and theft. You disprove it by showing countries with more theft and violence in healthcare currently have longer life expediencies. I'll leave aside the incoherent form of the hypothesis, the ambiguity in language and the factual mistakes and just accept that you're correct?

So what?

[MrCapitalism]

 

The US has, compared to other countries, a relative free system of healthcare. Thus, it should rank high on the table, compared to socialist countries.

You left out a whole bunch of socialist countries.

[LuckyNumber23]

You want to corral people into arguing a consequentialist case because you know statistics can be cherry-picked and distorted.

 

 

Stef does not mind using statistics to make a point. Is this consequentialism as well?

You left out a whole bunch of socialist countries.

 

I did. I wanted to compare countries on a similar level of GDP.

or that much if not most of the medicine and tech used by socialists comes from "capitalist" America

 

This was true some 50 years ago. Siemens, Toshiba, Phillips, Bayer, BASF, Roche are typical American companies.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Stef does not mind using statistics to make a point. Is this consequentialism as well?

No because Stef argues the morality and supports it with statistics. He could use no statistics at all and he would still have made his case. That's why I'm asking you "So what?". In fact I'll just accept for the sake of argument that under socialism the outcomes of providing goods and services are always better at all times.

So what?

[wdiaz03]

You gotta love these fly-by threads, Throwing some argument around to see how many people bite and waste their time replying, and replying...Even if these was a valid argument (which is not) it is still consequential.

 

Is it moral to enslave people to get better healthcare?

 

Looking at the OP other threads it seems he is here to steer the pot.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

This was true some 50 years ago. Siemens, Toshiba, Phillips, Bayer, BASF, Roche are typical American companies.

Fine, let's say that the highest funding for research in medicine did not come from America or even that China has not reached Number 2 since adopting much more capitalist principles in its economy. Let's say these socialist healthcare systems did not benefit from American funding. Let's even say that the country with the highest life expectancy Monaco does not have zero income tax but is the most socialist.

So what?

[LuckyNumber23]

You gotta love these fly-by threads, Throwing some argument around to see how many people bite and waste their time replying, and replying...Even if these was a valid argument (which is not) it is still consequential.

 

So consequentialism has brought some good results via the scientific method but you may not use it in ethical reasoning?

No because Stef argues the morality and supports it with statistics. He could use no statistics at all and he would still have made his case.

 

I assume you refer reasoning a priori (in a synthetic way) as morality. In this case I have to disappoint you. Mixing a priori reasoning and a posteriori (via statistics) is committing a categorial mistake.

So what?

 

You have been had. Americans pay the highest price for health insurance and get a mediocre product at best. If they chose to have a more rational system they would be better off. Both financially and in terms of health.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

So consequentialism has brought some good results via the scientific method but you may not use it in ethical reasoning?

I assume you refer reasoning a priori (in a synthetic way) as morality. In this case I have to disappoint you. Mixing a priori reasoning and a posteriori (via statistics) is committing a categorial mistake.

I'm not mixing any reasoning. You can support a logical argument with statistics. If I point out that your theory or ethic has contradictions then it's wrong. If I want to point to statistics or facts to demonstrate results of that theory or ethic I can do that as well. And as I pointed out I Stef does not even need the facts or statistics.

 

You have been had. Americans pay the highest price for health insurance and get a mediocre product at best. If they chose to have a more rational system they would be better off. Both financially and in terms of health.

If they're better of in terms of health and finance with your more rational system of violence then so what? I've "been had", therefore I should start advocating using violence to be "better off"?

[cab21]

http://www.nber.org/papers/w15213

 

"We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system."

 

are you suggesting that dying at 80 is worse healthcare than dying at 81 and spending 1 year on life support?

healthcare has little to do with how long someone lives, as people can be kept alive and be miserable.

healthcare is about health, not how long someone lives without health.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

http://www.nber.org/papers/w15213

 

"We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system."

 

are you suggesting that dying at 80 is worse healthcare than dying at 81 and spending 1 year on life support?

healthcare has little to do with how long someone lives, as people can be kept alive and be miserable.

healthcare is about health, not how long someone lives without health.

My father recently died from a mostly smoking related illness. The free healthcare system in my country probably extended his life-span from 68 to 69 at the cost of what must have been tens of thousand of pounds. For all I know if he'd have had to have paid the much higher insurance because of his smoking he may have stopped and he'd still be alive. It's almost impossible to know. Socialists will take the fact of the extended life-span, highlight it and use it as a justification for their violence. They are morally bankrupt so emphasizing the benefits of violence is the only case they have.

[cab21]

My father recently died from a mostly smoking related illness. The free healthcare system in my country probably extended his life-span from 68 to 69 at the cost of what must have been tens of thousand of pounds. For all I know if he'd have had to have paid the much higher insurance because of his smoking he may have stopped and he'd still be alive. It's almost impossible to know. Socialists will take the fact of the extended life-span, highlight it and use it as a justification for their violence. They are morally bankrupt so emphasizing the benefits of violence is the only case they have.

 

 

Free market capitalist wise, I'm not sure I would say there is a healthcare "system". People are free to create their own systems and live by their values and live by the consequences of their actions and values.

 

One person sells "don't smoke"

Another person sells "smoke"

Person buys "smoke"

The fate of a smoker can't be blamed on the person selling "don't smoke".

Insurance is not healthcare at that; at most it's one method of payment.

Again with the person selling not smoking vs. the person selling smoking, not smoking is cheaper in that people don't need to buy anything to not smoke, but people do need to buy to smoke.

 

diet wise, some diets are sold as more healthy and cheaper than other diets, and people still take other diets, so consumer choices has little to do with what producers are actually selling on the market.