From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: A word about Health Care
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:38:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.225042.4015@mont.cs.missouri.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

>
>For now the most important item needing to be addressed is the fairy
>tale that would not die, about "inefficient socialized  medicine" which
>we should "[not] throw money at."

>
>In fact, we need not concoct strange analogies with a National Food
>System; the rest of the industrial world *has* National Health Care so
>we may observe the results in the real world.

we certainly may

>
>In fact, it turns out that the "inefficient" National systems are FAR
>MORE EFFICIENT than the wasteful "market" approach, quite aside from
>the fact that the citizens of the rest of the western industrial
>nations also enjoy universal access while tens of millions of
>Americans have virtually no access to health care and the great
>majority of Americans are undercovered if covered at all.
>

The fact is that things that are considered basic in America are left out
in these 'more efficient' systems. Say the German government were to replace
your hip, but accidentally made your leg two inches too long. It's very
painful and you would like it fixed. 'Sorry we're the government and we
don't give a shit. You can't sue us and you can't go to another system
because we are the only system'
	 - real case, this person is considering going to the 'inefficient'
	 U.S. where he will have to pay but he'll get the damn job done.
>
>It will cost *less* money to cover all Americans with a National
>Health Plan. Of the 19 major industrial nations, *only* the U.S. does
>not have a National Health Plan with universal coverage.
>
>-- i.e., the `Free Press' -- including not only fairy tales about its
>"efficiency" but the very notion that human needs like health care can
>be proposed in an sane discussion to be run like a business "product;"
>the inability to percieve the most basic truisms about systems which
>givens their inherent natures maximize profits and not  
(I accidentally erased it- have to paraphrase) human welfare.

	only problem with this is that most hospitals are non-profit and
the few profit hospitals barely get by.

>the US is vastly more inefficient is therefore irrelevant.  It 
>is, for example, of no relevance that Blue Cross of Massachusetts 
>employs 6680 people, more than are employed in all of Canada's 
>health programs, which insure 10 times as many people; or that 
>the share of the health dollar for administrative costs is over 
>twice as high in the US as in Canada. 

	An enormous part of waste and administrative costs in most systems,
I don't know about Blue Cross of Mass., is dealing with government insurance
crap. As for employing more people, that's because Canada depends upon gen-
practitioners, as opposed to the many more specialists of the U.S. Well you
tell me- would you rather have heart surgery done by a heart specialist or
a gen-practitioner? The only proper use for GPs is to diagnose and tell you
which specialist to go to. They should not be relied upon as the Canadien
system does.

>accept... The US system rations by price; if you can afford it, 
>it's there.  Canadians ration their health care by providing the 
>same care for everyone and simply making those seeking elective 
>or less urgent procedures wait." 

How would you like to be told that you'll just have to wait. How long? oh...
only two, three, six years max. And if you die in the interim? Well, the
government has saved money, they don't have to treat you. That's why your
system is so much more efficient!
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d