Socialized medicine sparks discussion of systems of universal health care: medical and hospital care for all by means of government regulation of health care and subsidies derived from taxation. What are the moral and consumer repercussions that said doctrines and policies entail?
Clearly you address a peculiarly American matter in a uniquely American manner! Most other developed countries regard social medicine as a matter of civilisation. These countries are not socialist, their health policies are democratically endorsed on an ongoing basis.
You don't need to look to Europe to see this. Look north!
The US healthcare system is known to be significantly more expensive than socialised system with worse outcomes on most matters. It regards patients as consumers. They are not. It promotes healthcare as a commodity. It is not.
From here in the UK the US system looks appalling. No one here loses their home for the sake of an operation. The US system further entrenches the gross inequalities of its brand of capitalism.
Personally, it is a system that means I would never choose to live in the US. Not for personal economic reasons, but because of the vile treatment of so many of my fellow citizens. And there's the rub. For all its fault, social medicine carries with it far wider morality and a caring for others which America leaves to charity which cannot deliver what's required, and which should be delivered to all citizens by right.
Christopher NOCK
Social medicine in countries with economic models based on social ownership of the means of production is a guarantee for the provision of basic health services for the whole society. But this medicine has its very specific peculiarities, first of all; Governments have to devote a lot of financial resources to maintain the whole system, especially in the acquisition of modern technologies that require health services in the world today. Secondly; it is necessary to guarantee a system of overcoming health workers that constantly guarantees the elevation of their knowledge and professional rigor, this guarantees the greatest solution to the problems that patients present. In third place; it is essential to develop a preventive medicine for which it is necessary to educate the population in an intelligent way in the prevention of diseases, if this is not achieved, the quality of life of the population will be very low and health services will be saturated unnecessarily. And finally; It is necessary to develop a permanent feedback system that guarantees that system administrators know the level of satisfaction that patients present with the received tensions. On the other hand, doctors working in social medicine must be aware beyond the Hippocratic oath that they are the guarantee of the health of millions of people who have no other way to access these services, so we must constantly watch over their ethical behavior.
I agree with Christopher. As the United States is the only major industrialized country in the world without a universal healthcare system, the question might better be turned around to ask what the moral basis is for sustaining that position? The United States, without a universal healthcare system spends BY FAR the highest per capita in the world on healthcare and yet is only 35th in the world in terms of outcomes. What is the moral basis for sustaining this level of inefficiency? Everyone could have free (or very low cost) at the point of delivery healthcare in the United States and it would be far cheaper than the present system. And no bankrupticies either.
Yes, here in Europe we find American attitudes to healthcare rather odd, especially as such a clearly moral step, and one that advances economies, should be resisted. In Europe no one would employ socialised to describe healthcare institutions as the right for free healthcare for all citizens is assumed without a connection to political parameters.
Sorry Stanley, but you're quite wrong. It's a highly political matter in places like Cuba as Ron Pena tells us where social medicine is linked directly to an anti-capitalist politics. The same might be true of some south American countries. In these cases we find America at its worst. Seeking to destroy other people's healthcare systems like the school yard bully it often becomes when the Republicans have too much power. This, again, is a political decision.
In Europe it's a constant battle to deny American corporations access to our healthcare systems. The NHS will be damaged beyond recognition post-Brexit under any trade deal with the US. Political again. It was politics that gave us social medicine, it's politics that enables us to keep it, and it's politics that will destroy it. God bless America.
NOCK
When medicine was inefficient, charity was the only answer with a 30 years life expectancy and a 50% infant mortality. That was the Middle Ages. Improvement in hygien and surgery starting in the XIXth century, medical treatment in the XXth century lead to a huge increase in life expectancy. Everywhere, today, in developped countries, it can be shown that less than 5% of the population give rise to 50% of so-called health expenditures. Who can individually sustain such a burden ? Very few people. Then, the only answer to prevent such à catastrophic expenditure is a collective insurance with the largest base as possible to prevent the selection on individual risks which would circumvert the original goal. No socialism in this. Only observation and experiments over nearly 2 centuries.
Pr G. Dubois MD, MPH (JHU)
Well, I'm not convinced that we have our systems to protect 5% of the population from prohibitive costs! We might argue that collective healthcare objectifies the notion that health is largely a matter of luck, and no one should suffer simply because of a matter of luck. We might argue that this expresses our solidarity with the unluckiest who might just include our close relatives.
I would guess I have had multiple millions of £s spent by me by the UK and Ontario health systems. Many serious illnesses over many years. 4+ years in hospital, many operations, lots of emergency visits, ambulance transport...on and on! I'm hoping for one more procedure, unless I die first. In America, I'd be long dead. Here, I've still got a chance. Thank you fellow citizens. Many problems with the NHS, and I know that well! But, it remains a wonderful thing with a wondrous ethic at its heart. Healthcare free for all at the point of delivery. Thank you post-war Labour politicians for giving us. It's now a national treasure. You can criticise it, you can demand it become more efficient, you can even privatize services within it. But it must retain the same ethic, or woebetide you! Even Thatcher knew that!
NOCK
What I meant is that ALL of us will be sooner or later among the 5%! Mainly these 5% are during the 6 last months of life. Then, you may as all kinds of humanitery or philosophical arguments (I might agree wit), health coverage is necessary economically speaking. This is the cornerston of universal health coverage.
My point Gerard is that the economic argument can't explain the whole thing, hence America. It might go some way, but the clincher is ethics, not economics.
NOCK
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Public Health
- Health