From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Paradise lost and Medi-Cal...
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 00:37:16 GMT

In <1992Aug20.091514.21888@gdr.bath.ac.uk>, C D Burdorf writes:

(Discussion of socialist medicine deleted)

>>Get a clue man!  The amount of money spent on Health care in the
>>US far exceeds that of any country with socialized medicine.  The
>>reason for that is there is no profit motive in medicine in
>>countries with socialized medicine.  Thus, you don't have the
>>problems of doctors overcharging to pad their wallets and you
>>don't have the problem of them operating on people when it
>>isn't necessary (which happened to my sister in California).

Well, the profit motive does do one thing.  It certainly creates an incentive
to develop new and powerful drugs.  It may be the "profit motive" which you
despise so much that leads scientists to finding a cure for cancer or AIDS.
If you were a scientist, and you knew that finding a cure could be *extremely
lucrative* for you, wouldn't that motivate you just a bit?  I'm not saying
that monetary gain is *the* driving force, but come on, we're all human.  It
certainly enters the mind a little bit.
Other than that, I think profit is the wrong reason to get into medicine, but
hey, we live in the real world.  I guess Utopia didn't fade in the '60s...

>>You pay for medical care one way or the other.  In a socialized
>>system you pay through taxes.  In a private system you pay through
>>your salary.  You pay one way or the other.  The advantage of a

Unless you're doing nothing to improve your lot in life.  Then, the working
taxpayers will have their pockets picked *just for you*.

>>socialized system is THERE IS NO PROFIT MOTIVE IN MEDICINE, SO
>>YOU DON'T HAVE GREEDY CORRUPT PEOPLE PERFORMING OPERATIONS TO
>>MAKE BUCKS. AS A RESULT, YOU DON'T HAVE NEARLY THE SAME AMOUNT
>>OF MALPRACTICE PROBLEMS.  If you look at it rationally instead
>>of ideologically, you pay less for medical care in a socialized
>>system than you do in a private system in the following ways:

You also get the mediocrity of a government-run system.  Like Californians
(or anyone in the States) really wants public hospitals to be in the same
condition as our public schools.  The doctors would run around, form a large
state employees union, cry that medicine is being "underfunded" until the
people believe it, and the hospitals finally gets more money--money that goes
straight into the hands of the unions and their member physicians.  Sounds like
our education crisis, doesn't it?

>>1. Less Cost

Possibly.  That depends on a few factors.  First, will it maintain *the same
quality* as "evil capitalist" medicine?  Will the government, for the first
time in its history, actually keep costs and bureaucracy down?  Given their
track record, I wouldn't bet on it!

>>2. Less Malpractice

I hope so.  Watch the lawyers lobby fight this tooth and nail if so.  There
have been many attempts to reform malpractice and tort laws.  The lawyers and
the elected officials (most of whom *are* lawyers) won't let it happen.

>>3. Less worry about greedy doctors doing unnessary operations.

But if the system hits a financial crisis like the California situation, what
then?  IOUs to vendors?  Necessary medications which the vendors won't ship
(and understandably so) because they don't want the damn IOUs?  Budget cuts
which cause the *opposite* effect--patients NOT receiving necessary treatment
and corner cutting?  I've heard of many stories from Canadians who go to
Seattle, Buffalo or Detroit for some medical procedures, because the Canadian
socialist medical system either won't treat or make one wait several months for
a particular procedure.

(More stuff deleted)

>>It's attitudes like yours which show a total lack of social consciousness
>>and a total glut of self-centeredness which is screwing up California and
>>were partly responsible for the LA Riots.

Maybe so.  But *mostly* it's an attitude that government has to take care of
every damn little thing we do, and when the government gravy train ever loses
a wheel or derails, the people affected by the poverty pimps in Washington and
Sacramento get mad.  I submit that it was a *welfare state mentality* which
the government seems to *encourage*.  When a system gives of itself without
expecting anything in return, why *should* the recipients give anything in
return?  That leads to "Big Government" addicts.  Like those addicted to
cocaine or alcohol, when the Government supply of free goodies is ever inter-
rupted, problems begin.  Withdrawal symptoms kick in.  The junkies that the
government's welfare state create have no skills of their own.  They have not
been empowered by society to help themselves.  And when we create a system
which just hands money to the downtrodden, rather than also helping them to
*NOT NEED IT ANYMORE*, desparation sets in.  Part of the blame for LA may be on
the government, all right.  But it's *not* for "lack of social services*.  It's
for not encouraging education and self-reliance.  Period.

Flames will be respectfully read, and then ignored...


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
**************************************************************************
The Federalist Papers:  Cliffs Notes for Constitutional study.  Use it.
Newsgroups: alt.california