Talk:Single-payer health care
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] criticism section
- Since Adam Smith argued in Wealth of Nations for a government role in health care, then by your logic Adam Smith is a Communist.
- I think you should re-examine your logic. :) Nbauman 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
(begin from neutrino78x.blogspot.com) Nbauman, he did not advocate the idea that somehow the government should provide individuals with health care, and take away their choice in health care providers. Certainly, there was no communist health care system in England in Smith's day. The US Constitution, heavily influenced by Locke and Smith, does say that the government should "provide for the general welfare" but this is different from "provide for the specific welfare of any given individual". In other words, if there is a smallpox outbreak/terrorist attack, yes of course the government should try to stop it (via Locke's "social contract"), but it is not the role of government, in my opinion, and, I think, John Locke's and Adam Smith's as well, to make sure Joe Smith specifically has a health care plan; that's Joe Smith's responsibility, and Joe Smith has the freedom to make enough money to buy one, and Kaiser Permanente, Blue Shield etc have the freedom to sell one to him. This is called "the rugged individual theory", aka social darwinism, first articulated by a Brit named Herbert Spencer but highly influential in the United States, and is quite the successful policy here, given our GDP compared to every other great nation in the history of mankind (Greece, Rome, Egypt, UK in the 1600s, etc: paupers compared to the USA in 2007). Personally I do not have medical insurance, but if I want to see a doctor, I don't have to wait 10 weeks like in Britain, I simply call (one of) the local doctor and make an appointment, usually he's available the next day or maybe 2 days later, then go in there, I see him, and pay US$75. If I had Blue Cross medical insurance (one of several private health care plans available in the state of California), I would pay US$35/month, and a doctor visit would be US$10. Not free but pretty cheap, I just haven't subscribed to that because I'm lazy. :) If I have an emergency, I can call 911 (like 999 in the UK), and get free health care at the emergency room. Anyway I have been advised by senior Wikipedia people in the past that Wikipedia is not intended to be a debate society, and I figure that's reasonable, so I'll just leave my suggestions as they are...thanks for everybody's consideration... people can contact me via blogspot to tell me how stupid I am if they want (I know how frustrating it can be to see comments online that make you angry but then you can't email rants to the author lmao), feel free to delete these comments...(end from neutrino78x.blogspot.com) 71.116.71.27 04:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was not my idea that Adam Smith advocated government responsibility for medicine. I got the idea from Herbert Stein, who wrote it in an op-ed article on the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
- You are incorrect to believe that you could get free health care in an emergency room by calling 911. The WSJ has been running a long series of articles about Americans who couldn't get health care because they couldn't afford it, even when their lives depended on it. Here's how successful Herbert Spenser's ideas are in reality [1] Hospitals are required under Medicaid/Medicare laws to treat you, but they can also send you a bill for the services, and they do. The WSJ profiled people who owed hospitals hundreds of thousands of dollars that they had no chance of paying, and were being dogged by collections companies who were confiscating their savings accounts, cars, and any other assets.
- You and others like you are thinking of health care in terms of acute problems like a broken leg or food poisoning. You don't realize that the most difficult and expensive problems are chronic disease. If you developed lupus like Nikki White did, you would need $20,000 worth of medical care a year to stay alive, and in places like Tennessee, the hospitals won't give you that care if you can't pay for it. A friend of mine developed Chronic myelogenous leukemia in her 30s, and she is alive today only because she and her parents could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for the latest treatment. Hospitals turn people with CML away if they can't pay $15,000 cash for an initial visit. If you develop diabetes, $6,000 a year is often the difference between saving a leg an losing a leg.
- Where did you get the idea that Blue Cross in California is $35 a month? $300 a month is more like it, and you'd wind up paying $10,000 a year with deductibles and copayments if you actually have a serious disease like diabetes or asthma.
- You'd be better off reading some of those footnotes and sources that I and others added to the entry, to find out what the facts really are. The way to write a Wikipedia entry is not by pulling ideas out of the air. If (when) you actually get a chronic disease, you'll find out the facts pretty fast. Nbauman 10:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Definition
The definition of single payer is inconsistent. In the first paragraph it is defined as a system in which the government assumes the role of paying for health care; further down it says that there are "two types", one in which the government pays for private doctors, and the other in which the government runs the whole health care system. The only use I've ever heard is the first, the government pays private doctors. Is it ever used to refer to a government-run health care system? Nbauman 19:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
Try to find some sources (preferably in peer reviewed journals). :) Nbauman 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] USA-centric
Curiously USA-centric for an article about a system which isn't even used in USA. Move most of that stuff to some other article. The "single-payer vs. to socialized medicine" distinction in the intro is also weird in that context. HFuruseth 16:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I thought "single-payer" was an American term. I don't recall seeing it in Canadian, British or Australian medical journals.
- Feel free to add material about govenment-run systems elsewhere. Nbauman 02:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ah. If so maybe it should be "single-payer health care is an American term for..." so e.g. a Norwegian like me won't be led to use it e.g. in British english. Come to think of it, I expect that'd be even more so for "socialized medicine" which this article compares with. HFuruseth 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hfuruseth -- it should be referred to as "communist medicine" in my opinion. ;-) "Socialized" should have similar (negative) implications in the mind of the reader but for some reason, it often doesn't. I think in Europe they tend to support communist solutions because they still have the idea of The King Will Take Care of Us, for which the Americans clearly did not stand. ;-) lol, all kidding aside, my point is that "socialized" is not as politically neutral as "single payer". Some people think "socialism! woo hoo!" others (the majority in the glorious Republic of the USA, including myself) think "socialism! gross!" whereas "single payer" is just a neutral summary of the proposal. It's like, you can say "partial birth abortion" or "late term abortion" and they have totally different political implications.71.116.71.27 08:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ideological/Philosophical Objections
This section has no attribution at all. It doesn't quote anyone who holds these views. If anyone actually believes these things, you should be able to find someone to quote. Nbauman 08:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
