Why socialism is bad

Post Reply New Topic

Japan isn't a socialist country and they don't have better quality.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/11/ ... -sick.html
They have a higher life expectancy, but not a higher adjusted life expectancy, their successes are based upon better conditions somewhere somehow. The issue is that our current system sucks because we are the subsidizers, the current system insulates people from insurance costs so we overpay for medical care throughout.

In addition to what AG said, I would like to point out in the mid 1990s HMOs tried to say no to certain procedures (mostly because of high cost/low expected benefit) but the people hated that idea that the HMO said no, so they forced the government to force the HMOs to say "yes" essentially (which is the reason for the higher cost to GDP). Given the fact that the U.S. is a democracy, and people get upset with even talking about changing social security or Medicare, it seems unlikely the public would tolerate the gov't denying certain procedures (even ones with low expected benefits) (if the politician supported such a measure, he'd prob. be voted out).

The section on "for profit" and "not for profit" hospitals is somewhat deceptive. For profit hospitals, like the name implies gives returns to investors, "not for profit" hospital's profits go to the doctors at the hospital. Since the doctors actually receive more money at "not for profit" hospitals, they have direct incentives to lower costs and work more efficiently. If the government was in charge of hospitals, I think the "not for profit" positive effects we currently see would disappear (since profits would go to the government, not the doctors). "For profit" hospitals also have a benefit compared to "not for profit" ones, but I don't remember it or the source off hand (I'll post it if I find it).

Socialism is the reason my country for example-has free education, health care, things like that
I can walk into a hospital say if I busted my arm
get fixed, and not pay a damn thing!
and that's bad

yeah right

In a socialistic country the hospitals wouldn't afford to give you the right treatment for your busted arm.

There is no free lunch, Kilroy.

Depends on what you mean by 'socialistic' and 'right'. I was vacationing in Scandinavia (a region reputed to have 'socialist' medicine) and fell while shooting pictures. While falling, I twisted to one side to protect the camera, and hit the pavement on my elbow. I went to a very modern ER, where my arm was examined and X-rayed and I got treatment.

Cost to me was around $40.

I am not sure out policy with travelers
I am pretty sure its still free
but I have no idea

Scandinavia is rich because of international trade (mainly oil, but also natural gas, fish and aluminium). The medicine in Scandinavia isn't more 'socialist' than the medicine in Canada.

You seem to be getting communism and socialism confused. There many forms of socialism. I agree that communism does not, but countries such as japan and sweden have a socialist economy.

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_welfare

It is possible to mix socialism and democracy and create social democracies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Norway has a socialist economy too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy

They have better quality than american healthcare

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

No, no, look at the article. It says "mixed economy". Not only that, but Norway is an oil nation, with petro products accounting for 58% of its exports.

Not only that, but also look at this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_e ... ic-freedom
Norway is #27 on a report on economic freedom by the heritage institute. That is not socialistic as there is no way that the heritage institute, a very conservative think tank, would call a socialist nation to be economically free.

That is based upon WHO which also includes issues of financing and distribution and not purely upon the effectiveness of the health care. However, the US is one of the top scorers on responsiveness(a relatively objective measurement) based upon the WHO report. Frankly, the entire issue of adjusted health care is a lot more straight forward and less loaded of a measure than WHO.

What exactly do you mean by socialism then? be more specific.

You meant to quote a different post didn't you?

I would describe socialism as a specific ideology marked by the defining features that the economy is organized by non-market measures and typically with a regard for some societal equality.

By non market do you mean a social economy? and what is wrong with at least ateempting societal equality?