Talk:Socialized medicine

message: For those interested in furthering the article, I read a news article not long ago (which I can no longer locate) that discussed Haiti's medical system. Apparently Haiti had a devilishly awful HIV infection rate, a factor greater than Western nations who predicted disaster for the island nation. If I recall the article correctly, government medical programs took the matter in hand, provided the HIV cocktails at cost, and now has a mortality rate a fraction (1/15 I think was the number) that of the US. My specifics may be faulty, but not the substance of the article.
Good luck, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haiti 

message: It seems appropriate that the spelling should be standardized in this article, rather than switching from American to British back to American spellings (e.g. socialised, socialized).
:It may seem appropriate to standardize the spelling, but keep in mind that not every user knows that a word might be spelled differently by other users of English.  Steggall 17:05, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling homoginization 

message: I don't feel competent to add the necessary tags to refer to the poll that was conducted, but a PDF of the poll report is available at www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/files/Topline__Socialized_Med_Havard_Harris.pdf
It's not well formatted and contains only brief summary stats but hopefully it will address the "citation needed" requirements.
There's a link to the PDF on the page containing the press release (which is already a reference attached to the article). This may have been added at a later date.  HTH, AncientBrit (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Citations needed, section 4.8 (United States) 

message: It seems no one has hit the nail on the head when it comes to explain what is exactly unbalanced with the "Controversies" section. Plainly: only the arguments against socialized health care are exposed (the possible draw backs) and none of the possible advocated gains which are also part of the "controversy". This is what makes this section unbalanced. There is no more room for the reader to question himself/herself on the subject matter. The article presents more arguments and negative consequences againsts socialized health care than any possible gain (e.i.: if quality goes down, costs go up, innovation lags and access is restricted... what possible controversy could be left???). Obviously a self-serving article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisme (talk • contribs) 14:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The strongest objection lies within the US Constitution, which only gives certain enumerated powers to the Federal Government, none of which include dealing with health care. Opponents of socialized medicine who object on these grounds suggest that such a system may be viable (and legal) on the State or Local levels of government, but not at the federal level.
Did I write something wrong here? I will hold off reverting (or re-adding) until I get some consensus (or lack of an answer at all). Thanks! Sabin4232 (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The more neutral articles already exist. See publicly-funded health care and Universal health care. It is quite proper that this article should look at all sides. One would expect an article that looks at a term intended to sway public opinion would look at the extent to which public opinion has been affected. In the U.S. it seems to have swung from being negative to rather positive irrespective of attmepts by politicians and others in the fair and balanced media to use the term negatively. I am curious to know in what way you think this article is presently unbalanced. Please tell.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that it is "quite proper to look at all sides" when the exercise renders the subject secondary. The title of the article is "Socialized medicine", not "The debate over health care reform". "Balance" would apply to the latter, while the former requires objectivite definition. Despite all its words, the article fails to tell readers what socialized medicine is. Allreet (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid all you've discussed here is a collection of your own theories and opinions, which are sometimes hard to follow.  If you want to suggest that the existence of "socialized medicine" in other countries is because the US doesn't have one, you'll need to present some good cites that argue this.  It would also be good if these cites presented some evidence to support this, rather than just being opinion pieces. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate: Political controversies in the United States 

message: I'll up the ante on my suggestions above. From the very first sentence on, this article has fallen victim to the left-right political arguments over health care reform in the United States. For example, the lead  starts off by characterizing "socialized medicine" as a pejorative, which means it is primarily that. By contrast, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines socialized medicine as what it is and makes no mention of how some people have come to disparage the term with their usage.
That aside, almost everything in the US and UK sections is a back and forth of pros and cons. In my view, controversies on subjects like this are an afterthought, something that follows descriptive passages defining a subject's characteristics and historical development. What's here instead are arguments about the viability of socialized medicine. On top of that, the sources relied on in many cases are not only the opinion pieces and mainstream articles mentioned above, but websites such as Politico, Politi-Fact (3 cites) and FactCheck. My POV is that these sites are far less objective and reliable than Wikipedia. For example, at one point, Politi-Fact (St. Petersburg Times) cites someone from the Cato Institute, a partisan source, as the last word on an issue, and then the WP article cites Politi-Fact. Certainly, we should be aiming for something on a higher plane.
My opinion, then, is that much of this article fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for POV, verifiablity, notability, reliability, and good editorial practices. I don't mean to disparage anyone's good faith efforts, nor am I saying that everything is amiss, but because of how consumed we in the US are with the health care issue, much of this is a mess. Therefore, I believe it would be best to spin off the controversies as a separate article. The main article should focus on what people need to know about how socialized medical systems developed and operate worldwide, without fear, favor or judgment. As for the controversies, given the political tempers and temperaments of the moment, I don't think it's possible to come out of this with anything approaching a good article.
The point is, I originally came to this article as an average reader, that is, simply to learn something about the nature of socialized medicine and how these systems are run in different countries. Instead, what I found is something I can find in a million places on the Internet: an unsettled, never-ending argument skewed by political subjectivity. Allreet (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wanted to understand how public medicine works worldwide, instead of reading this article you should have read the article publicly-funded health care and/or the article universal health care. The point of this article is to examine the issues surrounding the term "socialized medicine" and determine to what extent (if any) the claims and counterclaims about socialized medicine are supported by factually verifiable data.  To the extent that this article does this (and I see nothing wrong with using sources such as politico and factcheck.org) I think this article serves its purpose and covers those issues which publicly-funded health care does not. The whole point of the term "socialized medicine" in U.S. politics was to stir up emotions which may or may not be true in reality. You really cannot "spin-off" the controversy. It is inextricalbly interlinked.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This really is quite a terrible, dreadful article. It is difficult to read due to numerous grammatical mistakes. There are careless and sloppy flaws such as run-on sentences everywhere. As for the contents, this seems like a Middle School grade student's persuasive essay assignment about how bad free-markets are and how great government statism is. There is not even a slight pretense of objectivity. Large sections of text exist without the slightest sourcing. I would give it a C- if I graded it. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

text: And I agree. In the US, "Socialized Medicine" is a label opponents of health care reform use in an attempt to demonize and thereby defeat reform measures. The term has no official meaning: it is applied only by opponents, it is not used by any authoritative agencies or agents (other than by those who are opponents but not at all by advocates of reform), and it is not used in any of the reform bills themselves. It has been a POV (non-objective) accusation from the start, and by and large, the effort to build an article around the political debate only legitimizes an essentially illegitimate application of the term. To clarify that, I would simply say that a true Socialist would look at the current health care bill/system and their response would  have to be "that's not socialism." The means of production and distribution remain in private hands, and current controls and funding measures do not alter the fact that the system is still predominantly capitalistic in nature, regardless of public funding. My point in mentioning this is not to support adding this POV to the article (though it should be emphasized more forcefully and thoroughly than to simply call the term "pejorative"), but only to say that much of the debate presented here has nothing whatsoever to do with defining the term. Allreet (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: spin off the controversy 

message: The article's lead paragraph uses just three words to define Socialized Medicine: "publicly-funded health care". Besides the debatability of this as a precise definition, every other word in the paragraph relates to the US controversy. This material belongs in a second or third paragraph since it is secondary to the definition itself. Among the definitions available elsewhere on the Internet (presented not as definitive but as examples):
:A system of health care in which all health personnel and health facilities, including doctors and hospitals, work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the US Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. And the Veterans and US military hospitals are also supported this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain. MedicineNet.com
:Medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation Merriam-Webster.com
Admittedly, even these could be debated as US-centric, but at least there is an attempt to objectively describe the term. The following, for example, makes clear that the definition given is specific to the United States, thus setting it apart from how the term might be used elsewhere in the world, that is, universally:
:U.S. Health care subsidized by government: a system of national health care that provides medical care to all and is regulated and subsidized by the government. Encarta
A more subjective example follows and would not be acceptable because of the source (a paper or opinion piece from an organization known to promote a particular view of the issue):
:A reasonable definition of socialized medicine is possible. Socialized medicine exists to the extent that government controls medical resources and socializes the costs. Notice that under this definition, it is irrelevant whether we describe medical resources (e.g., hospitals, employees) as "public" or "private." What matters-what determines real as opposed to nominal ownership-is who controls the resources. By that definition, America’s health sector is already more than half socialized, and Obama’s health care plan would socialize medicine even further. Cato Institute
The definition here is broad enough to support the writer's thesis that the US health care system is already socialized (more than half, presumably based on Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans' Administration, etc.), but without addressing aspects raised by other definitions. 
Certainly, with all the information available, we could come up with something better than the current lead paragraph. Whatever that might be, I would caution against limiting this to the US application of the term. If that requires more than one definition (the range of possibilities), all the better for readers worldwide. Allreet (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Definition tag 

message: I have added "citation needed" to this even though the text says "according to the New England Journal of Medicine".  This journal is being quoted by a website but we don't know where it actually appears in the journal nor where the journal got it from.  It is not a figure I recognise from UK coverage of this issue.  Unless we can find where NICE states this, is it really valid for this to be used as if it is a fact?  Allen Brown (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  $34,000 a year 

message: As the template advised, this article was too long and poorly focused and also there are many other articles that cover the different countries' approaches to universal health care which is the global standard term. So I relocated the international material to individual sections in Universal health coverage by country. It still needs integrating into the respective sections there as I advised on the talk page. This edit was a good faith effort to improve coherence, readability and focus as well as remove repetition overall but of course, all the different components need further tightening. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relocating the international material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Socialized medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080530160511/http://www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/imprimis_archive/2006/07/2006_07_Imprimis.pdf to http://www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/imprimis_archive/2006/07/2006_07_Imprimis.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified