It's silly that they tout Obama's plan as socialist medicine. I get it. The idea is to conjure up images of government bureaucracy and inefficiency (think DMV or the Post Office). But here are the facts:
FACT: capitalist medicine is inefficient.
FACT: socialist medicine is not.
Cynthia Yockey writes a colorful essay about "socialist medicine" in Pajamas Media.
It's juvenile to call it "socialist medicine." Why don't I call the conservative way "capitalist medicine." What I love about capitalist medicine is how efficient it is. Check out this graphic:
Get it straight: capitalist medicine is inefficient. Double-check that graphic if you're confused.
We spend the most out of any developed country and yet we don't see the benefits. Why is that? More free market isn't the answer.
I understand the purpose of calling it socialist medicine. It's to evoke long lines and rations. It's to conjure up images of government inefficiency (like waiting at the DMV or Post Office).
That's clever. But what about the inefficiency of capitalist medicine?
How about the long lines you will face 20 years from now when you're in court trying to fight your insurance company for coverage. Or what about the rationing of decent nursing homes for your parents because they simply aren't affordable in this country. Why are hospitals so crowded in America? It's because capitalist medicine is taking us for a ride.
FACT: capitalist medicine is inefficient.
FACT: socialist medicine is not.
If you're confused, re-read.
posted by 
subscribe to feed
follow on Twitter
Mike said on June 22, 2009 8:47 AM
2 things: 1) the statistics don't take into account differences in diet and the correlation to life expectancy, 2) it also doesn't take into account the manner in which the free market drives medical research, even when it doesn't maximize return (tax dollars) to the government (which is the way medicine is doled out in many of those countries).
Research performed in other countries is also to an extent, predicated on the ability of those companies to sell their breakthrough to the U.S. for the higher gain. In effect the free market works to subsidize domestic and foreign medical advances.
Your treatment of the issue is hopelessly superficial.
JMom said on June 22, 2009 1:42 PM
They can call it what they want. So long as they pass it so my kids can get some decent health care. Even with insurance, I can't afford to pay for all the extras that the insurance don't cover. Especially dental.
Philip Dhingra said on June 22, 2009 5:07 PM
The financial difference could be easily explained because of the health care system (not the obesity).
Why is the U.S. healthcare system so expensive? Administrative costs, marketing and profits account for 22 to 31 percent of the U.S. healthcare dollar (I recently heard Edward Kennedy say these costs were 33 percent, but I have not seen documentation of that number). By contrast, overhead costs in single-payer systems (including Medicare) typically are 3 percent.
That alone could lead to that extra 5% that the United States has in healthcare costs relative to other countries.
This isn't R&D costs.
Yes, it's true obesity in America is the highest in the developed world, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have universal health care.
I know obese people. Some of them have insurance. Some of them don't. When an obese person has insurance, and they start having breathing problems or feel pains that non-obese people wouldn't feel, they see a doctor. The doctor then gives them a pep talk, lays it out to them, makes it clear the consequences. They become scared and they then change their diet and start exercising. The ones that don't have insurance, they just ride it out until something really bad happens, and its usually too late.
I would be interested to see what the correlation is between a lack of insurance and obesity? I bet it's really high.