Why is socialized medicine wrong?

Question

Since the majority of industrialized countries that have socialized
medicine provide better medicine to the majority of their patients
than we do (exceptions be those with money), why is it wrong
for us and right for them?

Answer 1

Any evidence on the claim that the "majority of industrialized countries that have socialized medicine provide better medicine to the majority of their patients than we do"?

The author of the book, "The Undercover Economist" does a good job of going through the pros and cons of socialized medicine and the U.S. healthcare system.

Also, consider that the socialized systems benefit from the U.S. system in two fashions. First, they get to share in the innovations that are made in the U.S. and second, patients in these countries have the option of coming to the U.S. if they can't get treatment in their country. Take those two aspects away and those systems become much less viable in 20 - 30 years as innovation is stifled and people become restless because they have to turn to blackmarket medicine to get procedures their system won't provide.

The "Undercover Economist's" recommendation? Use a system similar to Singapore. Allow people to save $1,500 per person per year in a tax free medical account to cover basic health stuff. Those below a certain income threshold would get the $1,500 from government. Then pay for insurance to cover the big stuff.

Answer 2

You started with an untrue premise. Countries with socialized healthcare do not provide better medicine. Specialized treatment can be a long wait. Many people in Canada, for example, come to the US to get specialized treatment, because it takes too long to get it in Canada.

A big reason why socialized medicine is wrong is that is stifles innovation and the helping of those with rare disorders. In a free enterprise system, investors just need to find a way to make a profit. If there is a way, and there always is in medicine, then a facility will be built to deal with the problem. In a socialized situation, the voters have to decide whether to open a specialized center. And since most voters aren't affected by whatever specialized treatment is being debated, it is harder to get the necessary funding and equipment to create the resources for this minority of sick people. In that is another problem, the government always has to justify its costs to the voters. Healthcare is expensive and is always going to be a major burden on taxpayers. Taxpayers are going to want their politicians to cut costs as much as possible, thus giving us a partially defunct medical system.

Answer 3

First off there is no simple answer here. Each has its own
set of problems.

The biggest issue in places like Canada with socialized medicine
is wait times for surgies, and the huge bureaucractic cost
of running the system. But innovation does occur in Canada,
contrary to what a lot of people think - the first succesful
lung transplants occurred in Canada, the CF gene was discovered here with an international team, etc.....

The US does lead in the transition of discoveries in the lab to the marketplace though.

However, in the US the cost of health care for "simple" procedures is a huge burden on family. And witness the nonsense that the HMO have instilled on the health care system.
The Americans have bureaucrats telling sick people what
type of medical care they can get, contrary to what the doctors think the patients should get. Furthermore, the liability insurance that doctors need to have in the US is huge its not funny.
Finally, look at GM's cost of insuring its work force - nearly 1500 of every car it sells is allocated for health costs of it work force and retirees - so now GM is uncompetitive in the auto industry.

Its not that simple, really. Principally, do you think that health care for people is like any other "commodity" in the market place and should be governed by market laws - no difference between shopping for a cell phone or toaster or surgery or cancer treatment!

Answer 4

Socialized medicine can have problems. Longer wait times bed and equipment shortages. Some of the countries that have a version of socialized medicine experience this to some level or another.

That being said I believe that this is a worthwhile price to pay to ensure that the greatest number of people are covered and is worth the extra costs.

Answer 5

Mostly because the United States is a cash cow for the pharmaceutical industry. If medicine was socialized, the program would have enough marketshare to force the pharmaceutical companies to drop prices to a reasonable level. Pharmaceutical companies have deep pockets, and have bribed our government via campaign contributions.

As for healthcare being inferior in countries with socialized medicine, in some ways it is. If you are rich in the states, you can get all the treatment you need. If you are poor and can't afford it, you are out of luck. I would rather everyone have some healthcare than some have no healthcare.

Answer 6

The only way to provide socialized medicine is through force. The government forcibly takes my money and distributes it to someone else.
That is simply not liberty.

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
-Thomas Jefferson

.

Answer 7

I totally agree with you

I don't think it is wrong at all.